PDA

View Full Version : Gav Thorpe "Explanation" - Pssbly Old News but Interesting



Pages : [1] 2

Fulgrim's-Chosen
25-08-2007, 12:12
Okay...having read many of the threads on the new Chaos Codex with great interest in recent weeks....and having seen a lot of commentary directed at the tag team of Gav Thorpe and Alessio C. , I was curious to see if I could locate any kind of "explanation" or "thinking behind the changes" commentary offered up by either of these guys recently.

I discovered the following paragraph / "quote" - on The Bolter & Chainsword website/40k-forum ...and it's dated the 24th of July ...so basically 1-month old....HOWEVER...I don't know if it was discussed on Warseer yet...or if it was, I have not seen any threads with it in them since I started reading this site (about 3+ weeks ago) - so if there WERE discussions, they have probably moved deep in the Forum depths and thus a new review of what Gav said might be enlightening / interesting / rage-inducing ;) (for some) ... particularly for new-to-Warseer members who might not have seen it before.

* Note that the background for this commentary by Gav is apparently his response to some kind of emailed Q+A concerning "Necro 2007" - some gaming event or such that I'm not familiar with ? - More important than why he was saying this is, I think, WHAT he actually said... *

SO...without further ado...here's "Gav Thorpe in his own words":


GAV
The main shift has been to bring in the Chaos Renegades of the last ten thousand years rather than focus solely on the Traitor Legions and the events of the Horus Heresy. There is one army list, pretty flexible with the Cult Marines such as Plague Marines and Berzerkers as Troops, so theming is still viable. Marks (represented by unit Icons) are available to a much wider selection of units.

On the whole the aim was "freedom not rules". It's Chaos, for crying out loud; it shouldn't be a mess of overlapping structures and restrictions!

Many of the more fiddly options have been removed as specific rules, allowing players to exercise their imagination in creating cool models and paint schemes rather than worrying whether that spiky bit on their Lord's helmet would cost them 5 points. In all, the viewpoint has been wound back so players are making decisions about their army on a more macro-scale, thinking about the mix of units and vehicles rather than inconsequential modeling details on individual members of their squads.

Daemons are "generic", and are broken into Summoned Greater Daemons and Summoned Daemons. They have one profile for each type and can be considered almost like a spell effect. Codex: Chaos Daemons will be released several months after Codex: Chaos Space Marines for those who love their Chaos Daemons and want to field Daemonic Legion armies.

The army list represents a "typical" Chaos Space Marines army with a mix of Marks and Gods, although players still have plenty of options to theme if they desire. It was felt that to do proper justice to the cult armies (i.e. Khorne armies, etc) requires a specific Codex in its own right - Codex: World Eaters, for example, just like Codex: Dark Angels for the loyalists.

There's immense scope for really cool models, background and games within these armies and to reduce them to a relatively few options (not well represented by the miniatures range) and a page of background is bordering on the criminal.

Why not have 20+ pages of history for Khornate warbands and a full army list of cool Khornate-themed stuff like different types of Berzerkers squads to choose from? Now, there's no scheduled releases of this type yet, but by approaching Codex: Chaos Space Marines in the way we have, we have the option to do so without creating contradictions and confusion.

Also we've included lots of Colour schemes and background to inspire people on the painting side of the hobby, including over two dozen new colour schemes for various warbands. I'm really pleased with it.

I think it's now possible to choose a Chaos army without succumbing to the madness of the warp, and the idea of creating your own warband is now as strong as the urge for loyalist players to create their own Chapters. The idea was to give that back to the players and allow them to decide what they want in their army and how it looks - freedom not rules!

The Judge
25-08-2007, 12:19
Well admitting that Codex: World Eaters is a possibility at least is news to me.

I can only imagine the number of complaints we would get if they did do a codex for each major power (or Traitor Legion :O)

boogle
25-08-2007, 12:24
I don't think there would be too many complaints, as by then Orks will have had their Codex, and maybe Even Dark Eldar too

I have a feeling that the release schedule for next year will be: Orks, Daemons and maybe the Space Marine Redux, then Necrons, Dark Eldar and Spacwe Wolves for 2009

Supremearchmarshal
25-08-2007, 12:31
On the whole the aim was "freedom not rules". It's Chaos, for crying out loud; it shouldn't be a mess of overlapping structures and restrictions!


How ironic.

Captain Micha
25-08-2007, 12:44
I think honestly they did good with what they have now. they don't -need- to do those codeci. But they are marines and as such they will of course get their own codeci. *yes the first one to complain about that idea already...*

But I am fine with that in a way. PROVIDING THEY STOP NEGLECTING OTHER ARMY'S like say.. DARK ELDAR, (change that name too while your at it.... ) ORKS, NECRONS and the TWO INQUISITOR armies.... yea. remember them? Oh yeah that's right. Them.

As long as they do this I will be fine. Release all the marines you want, just STOP neglecting.

Also supreme, they are more free now. I thought the old list was overly themed to a point of stupidity, just like the old craftworld dar codex.

Wraithseer
25-08-2007, 12:53
If games workshop would just say "we will be making cut specific army books", than all will be forgiven. so long as the chaos codex is temporary, I can wait.
At the moment my Emperors children are how ever a nonviable force.:(

ehlijen
25-08-2007, 13:13
wait....more meq codices? Dear lord! (but at least it will increase the number of 'not-some-imperial-dudes' codices...)

Captain Micha
25-08-2007, 13:34
Gw wants to turn 40k into pure meq vs meq (or in this case quite literally M vs M)

Captain Micha
25-08-2007, 13:50
you do realise he does infact frequent the forums? *L*

Also I know you -really- love the codex. Your ability to sarcasm is amazing

studderigdave
25-08-2007, 13:56
the new codex is growing on me. BUT i really dont care about the phrase that Gav used to describe the old codex, about it taking better parts of the day to make a 2000 point list. i could bang out a working 2k list in under 5 minutes. i really think the dumbing down part of the codex(es) is an insult to the gamers who play this game. its not checkers, its meant to have some measure of complexity.

Captain Micha
25-08-2007, 13:57
I think he meant tweaking it for it's maximum effective cheese could take the better part of a day for someone that's never seen the codex before.

does that clarify?

so many broken options in the old dex. I don't know how you guys -ever- came to a conclusion of what to use?

Neilza
25-08-2007, 15:15
Very well put i think the new codex is crap why does chaos get redone when orks necrons dark eldar and even guard should have been next inline for a update.Theres nothing wrong with the present codex at all.

Killshot
25-08-2007, 15:22
I think people take this game too seriously.

I welcome the changes to a codex as it reinvigorates people to learn to tactics and try new things. I've played a number of people who don't change their army or tactics for YEARS. I am really excited about the Daemon codex and hope to field an entire daemon army.

PMTN
25-08-2007, 15:43
I think people take this game too seriously.

I welcome the changes to a codex as it reinvigorates people to learn to tactics and try new things. I've played a number of people who don't change their army or tactics for YEARS. I am really excited about the Daemon codex and hope to field an entire daemon army.

Got to agree with that, it is a hobby after all. But as I don't want to go off topic.

I think this looks like really good news to me. Just imagine if GW started to go in the direction of releasing rules in White.D or releasing them for free online. An extra army list or one or two added units to each traitor legion could really add even more flexability. With codex deamons, I can see a sort of chaos forming reminiscent of fantasy chaos. Which honestly make their armies flexible, unique and competitive.

For now though. Looks like the Emperors children will remain worse than Chris Tuckers acting. (sorry, but seriously! Have you seen the new Rush hour movie?)

Lindworm
25-08-2007, 15:54
Well, it's all interesting to me. Demon codex? Specific chapter codexes? That'd balance things. If they have dark angels, blood angels, space wolves, etc. They may aswell bring out a few codexes for the relevant "cult legions", it'd only be fair, get a few models redone in plastic perhaps, perhaps a few more... and add more content overall for people to play with. I see nothing wrong with the way things are going.

Acolyte of Bli'l'ab
25-08-2007, 16:58
demon codex ? yay!! I always wanted a tzeentch daemon army for 40k.

specific chapter codices ? dont like this idea, allthough I think white-dwarf codices like the BA one for chaos legions would be good, id just rather see some new races/armies than more MEQs personally.

Shadowheart
25-08-2007, 17:04
You know, concidering that the previous Codex was just as much GW's work, and that it was sold to and used by thousands of gamers, they could try not making it sound like such a joke. No sense making your customers feel like they were idiots for using such a supposedly shoddy set of rules.

Chaos, in 40K as in Fantasy, is an army GW just can't make up its mind about. They'll take a new direction with them in another five years or so, I've no doubt. The Renegade focus is valid enough, although again, they've been selling Chaos with a Legions focus since 2nd edition, so they could show a little more concideration for their long-term customers.

And while a bunch of specialised Codex books sounds ideal, it only counts if they actually pull through and release them. Again, I have my doubts over GW's ability to stick to a long-term plan for any long term. Chaos Marines are probably popular and easy enough for it to actually happen, although as has been observed it'd make the alien races look like even more of a fringe affair than they already are.

I feel a lot of this agitation would be alleviated if GW weren't so uptight about releasing rules only in Codex books. Put some simple get-you-by lists online for the people whose existing armies would otherwise be invalidated. Call it service.

Basically, while it's good that GW is constantly hatching new plans, I'd rather they didn't present them as "the way it's going to be forever from now on", and that they showed concideration for the people who have invested in their old new plans.

Other than that, swell, Renegades. I suppose the Codex includes background dealing with the motivations of these groups?

Belisarius
25-08-2007, 17:12
If games workshop would just say "we will be making cut specific army books", than all will be forgiven. so long as the chaos codex is temporary, I can wait.
At the moment my Emperors children are how ever a nonviable force.:(

Gotta agree with Wraithseer, however do the orks and Dark Eldar next as they have had to wait a very very long time, oh yes and a WD for space wolves then fix the disaster of a current codex. I am offended they did such a half @ssed job on the first one but am willing to forgive if they do one for cult armies. He mentions freedom removing cult armies and cutting options is hardly giving us more freedom it is throwing more restrictions and while a number of things in the old dex did need toneing down the concepts brought forth in the old dex should have been supported.

Damien 1427
25-08-2007, 17:25
I still call bull on the whole affair.

The old list did need fixing. But the plethora of options and room to create something with a lot of character certainly made it more palatable, which is why it was favoured by a lot of fluff gamers. The Legion and Cult lists needed fixing, and I think most Legion players could have lived without their special rules, and the Cults could do with a bit of tweaking.

The new list is nothing more than Spiky Loyalists, a conclusion I confirmed by going back over it with the previous two books and the Loyalist codex. I flat-out refuse to believe Gav and Alessio spent more than a week writing the rules, because so much is simply copy-and-pasted straight over with the occasional minor addition or subtraction and renaming.

The fluff and art was nice, and I for one welcome the focus on Chaos being a lot more disorganised. Few legions have held together, so the idea of dozens of warbands under new colours does make sense and I do think it's cool.

From a gaming standpoint, the codex was a hash thrown together on a lunchbreak and padded out. As a codex for the newly converted to the ranks, such as a rogue bunch of Ultramarines, I guess one could argue it makes sense. As a representation of the Traitor Legions, it's crap. Pure and utter crap.

Oh course, as Shadowheart points out, the previous "long-term" plans never lasted that long. With any luck, a few years down the line we'll have a codex worth talking about. As it stands, by Iron Warriors (Who seem to lack Obliterators or pie plates) will stay in storage until that day, and hold my hopes out for Orks.

Rabid Bunny 666
25-08-2007, 17:26
Good explination, but if you want to whine about the 'dex, just post in the 20 or so other threads about how rubbish their army is.

Slaaneshi Slave
25-08-2007, 17:28
I don't see how the plethora of options made something with a lot of character. There were only a few different combinations of of gifts and gear that were ever taken.

Belisarius
25-08-2007, 17:33
I don't see how the plethora of options made something with a lot of character. There were only a few different combinations of of gifts and gear that were ever taken.

1. it gave the options for customization to fit a theme for your forces and the wide selection allowed you to be unique from others.
2 Gotta disagree, i used a lot of different combinations so did a lot of other people the problem was a number of people abused them and gave a bad rap for all of us, kind of like hunting at times, you don't hear about the responsible normal ones too often you hear about the idiots doing dumb stupid things when you hear of it.

Damien 1427
25-08-2007, 17:42
There were only a few different combinations of of gifts and gear that were ever taken.

*Shrug* I like the choice. If I wanted a Lord with Speed, Attack and Bionics, I could build a mechanical-spider-legged Iron Warrior Lieutenant with a plethora of sawblades and drill arms and it could do what it looked like it count do - Move fast, and hit you repeatedly.

Too much choice is never a bad thing, especially if some of the options were so pointless as people harp on about. But what we have now is to my mind far too limiting, and is, as I keep saying, far too much like the Loyalist list for my tastes.

ChrisAsmadi
25-08-2007, 17:49
I hope to god they don't do another four legion codexes. Seriously, there's already five marine codexes - we don't need an equal number of CSM ones. By all means, they should do them in WD, but for god sake, No more marine 'dexes.

Grand Master Raziel
25-08-2007, 17:50
Very well put i think the new codex is crap why does chaos get redone when orks necrons dark eldar and even guard should have been next inline for a update.Theres nothing wrong with the present codex at all.

Nothing wrong with it at all...except for the fact that it was the most horribly broken set of army rules to be seen in both 3rd and 4th editions of the game. There was no way Chaos was going to avoid losing a lot of stuff when their next Codex came out.


If games workshop would just say "we will be making cut specific army books", than all will be forgiven. so long as the chaos codex is temporary, I can wait.
At the moment my Emperors children are how ever a nonviable force.:(

Poppycock. You're not the only EC player to peddle this line, but it's been pretty well established by leveler heads that EC players don't have to lose that many models out of their current armies. Got Terminators and Bikes with sonic weapons? That's not a problem - since that's not an available upgrade for them now, they have what Terminators and Bikes come with. No one will be confused about that. Ditto Predators with Blastmasters - they can count as autocannons or lascannons, whichever you see fit. The only real loss EC players are suffering is blastmaster-Havocs, so you might wind up with a handful more figures with blastmasters than you can use in any given game. However, you replace those figures with figures toting missile launchers, and your army is good to go again.


And while a bunch of specialised Codex books sounds ideal, it only counts if they actually pull through and release them. Again, I have my doubts over GW's ability to stick to a long-term plan for any long term.

That is a real good point. GW went into 4th edition with the intention of balancing things out by uppowering the weak armies, which they did with Tau and vanilla SMs (and IG and Chaos before 4th ed was released). However, they didn't make it all the way through the cycle of dexes before new people brought new ideas. Now, the overall concept is to tone things down. That'll be fine if GW can stick to that design philosophy through the whole cycle of dexes. My concern is that, after having done all the SM armies and Chaos with that design consideration, they'll decide to start uppowering things again, which will mean either giving the shaft to the MEQ players or releasing yet another set of updated dexes for the MEQ armies, which will inevitably feed the persecution complexes of the Xenos army players.

Slaaneshi Slave
25-08-2007, 17:53
Too much choice is never a bad thing, especially if some of the options were so pointless as people harp on about. But what we have now is to my mind far too limiting, and is, as I keep saying, far too much like the Loyalist list for my tastes.

I've yet to see any sort of reason given by people who make these statements as to why Chaos Marines wouldn't be very similar to loyalist marines, in fighting style, docrine and organisation. It is discipline which keeps a soldier alive, if they lost the discipline they had learned while still loyal they would be dead long ago.

Marius Xerxes
25-08-2007, 17:57
*Shrug* I like the choice. If I wanted a Lord with Speed, Attack and Bionics, I could build a mechanical-spider-legged Iron Warrior Lieutenant with a plethora of sawblades and drill arms and it could do what it looked like it count do - Move fast, and hit you repeatedly.



Funny you mention a Spider Like Iron Warrior character.. thats exactly how mine was modeled. Terminator top half set on top of a Necron Destroyer Body with Tomb Spider legs comming from it.

Acolyte of Bli'l'ab
25-08-2007, 18:00
I hope to god they don't do another four legion codexes. Seriously, there's already five marine codexes - we don't need an equal number of CSM ones. By all means, they should do them in WD, but for god sake, No more marine 'dexes.

If they kept those kind of "sub codices" to WD, you could cover other armies as well like specific craftworlds, ork clans, c'tan specific, Genestealer cults ect :) makes sense to me !

Belisarius
25-08-2007, 18:04
I've yet to see any sort of reason given by people who make these statements as to why Chaos Marines wouldn't be very similar to loyalist marines, in fighting style, docrine and organisation. It is discipline which keeps a soldier alive, if they lost the discipline they had learned while still loyal they would be dead long ago.

Tactical styles change over the years in any military organization based on their circumstances and experiences. Look how many times the army of Alexander the Great changed their structure during his lifetime without losing the discipline. Furthermore remember certian legions doctrines and fighting styles were not "codex" behavior, structure, or doctrine. IW for siege and creeping gun lines, NL- raiding force specializing in terror tactics, WB religous nut armies relying prior to the heresy massed converts to the imperial cult. AL- anything goes, infiltration, deception, recruited forces. This is just to name but a few.
Furthermore the influence of chaos makes for new options not available to loyalists and if chaos marines are going to use them they would have to adapt to a newer style that would differ from the loyalists in order to do so. And yes they could do this without a loss of discipline.

Slaaneshi Slave
25-08-2007, 18:13
Except you can do almost everything you described there with loyalists (except cultists and the new war machines).

Belisarius
25-08-2007, 18:18
Except you can do almost everything you described there with loyalists (except cultists and the new war machines).

daemonic possession, biowarfare in the form of walking hosts, cultists are a base requirement at times with summoning, daemonicly nfused vehicles that while giving greater power behave in a different manner, sonic weaponry, seems to me that right there is quite a lot and would require a restructure in orginization that would differ heavily from loyalists. Chaos isn't and should never be loyalists with spikes.

Marius Xerxes
25-08-2007, 18:22
Id say its avoiding any number of battlefield conditions that keep a soldier alive. :p

But seriously I dont mind Loyal forces being more potent then Chaos forces overall. I mean people want to talk Fluff.. if after 10,000 years of combat, if the "Good Guys" wernt more powerful, they would have lost by now! You have any number of Gods of Chaos who cant even, with their armies, match the might of a Single God Emperor who just sits all day!

Hopefully the Ruinious Powers forgive that truth and me stating it.. I dont want my Iron Warriors suddenly having the Chaos Gods of Dice not working in my favor anymore..

Vaktathi
25-08-2007, 18:23
As Gav does indeed post on here, I decided to simply PM him with my own questions, and he responded rather quickly and didnt seem to mind answering questions. Here are his responses. (hope he doesnt mind me reposting these)

with regards to min 10man size for chaos troops to take heavy weapons




The Chaos Sace Marines frames have been re-tooled along similar lines to the Space Marines and so the updated box comes with ten-man squads. The principle is for players to make choices about their army on a much more unit-by-unit level rather than individual models. By limiting heavy weapons in the basic squads, players have more incentive to look at Predators, Havocs, Obliterators and such. Multiple small units having access to heavier weapons undercuts the role of other parts of the army.



changes to Oblits and unit Statlines




Again, this is about giving the Obliterators a more defined role, and also to address a more system-wide problem with the escalation of profiles. The Obliterators main strength is their versatility, and while they remained outrageously tough this meant that Plague Marines would have to be even tougher to show their strength. This could have developed into an internal 'arms race' with units all competing for the same ground in people's armies rather than having a place and role to fulfil. All of the changes, to the squads in particular, should be taken as a whole. We've removed lots of the special rules that 'cluttered' the army list and added much more definition to each unit with simple but significant differences between them.

Secondly, since the re-write of the Codexes back in 3rd edition, we 'flattened' all of the profiles so that Toughness 5 was remarkable and limited to very few troop types. This is because the system used Imperial Guardsmen (the average human) as a benchmark, but over the years the prevalence of WS, BS4, S4, T4, 3+ armour save Space Marines seems to have shifted that middle ground in people's perceptions. If an Obliterator is T5, then surely a Daemon Prince should be T6, a Great Unclean One T7? So, the escalation continues to pull the system away from its founding principles. T4 is meant to be better-than-average, but at the moment that's not very obvious.



Predator changes



The Predator is in line with changes made in the Dark Angels Codex. Again, here we want people to make significant decisions. The investment in points for a supreme anti-tank vehicle means that players must think before they upgrade. The humble autocannon Predator really hasn't had a chance in either CSM or SM armies for many year now, and no surprise when it was so cheap (relatively speaking) to upgun?



Dreadnaught fire frenzy changes



It's only more dangerous if you're too close! Firing twice is more dangerous to the opponent in the right circumstances. This was simply a step back towards the Dreadmoughts of the original 2nd edition Codex, making them unpredictable but potentially deadly. Regarding the Defiler, I'm glad players see it more as an assault walker than an indirect-firing tank, as that's more fitting with what it's supposed to be. With the Dreadnoughts and Defilers now occupying different force organisation chart slots, players will have to look at their overall army composition. Sure, they can take Defilers over Dreadnoughts, but that restricts access to other heavy support choices, so Dreadnoughts might be ther better option if you also want Havocs, Obliterators, tanks and so on; the wider shape of their army becomes more of a consideration.



Removal of Vet skills and Legion rules.




The veteran skills were never justified, not when you consider other elite, specialist warriors such as Aspect Warriors or loyal Space Marines who don't get them. As before, reducing some of the smaller scale options means that players can't have their cake and eat it - they have to pick the unit types they need for their strategy and use them on the battlefield appropriately, rather than minutely tinker and tailor individual parts of the army to do exactly what they want.

The removal of Legion-specific rules seems to be causing the most contention, which we expected. However, I think in the longer term giving ourselves the option of producing proper, full Codexes for the most interesting and different Legions is very exciting. For example, imagine a full 20+ page background section and unique army list for the World Eaters, with specific troop types and war engines, for which we actually produce models? That is a much better way to treat these iconic forces than a half-job variant army list and a couple of paragraphs of background.



regarding Kharne's "always hits on a 2+"




At first glance, I cannot see any reason why vehicles would not be hit on a 2+, regardless of speed or type.



change from "Chaos Undivided" to "Chaos Glory"




We've found that the concept of Chaos Undivided within the rules was affecting people's perception of the background. 'Chaos in all its Glory' better reflects what's going on - followers worshipping all of the Chaos gods, as opposed to some non-existent 'fifth power' represented by Chaos Undivided. It was also as much for ourselves, as a reminder that the majority of Chaos followers don't choose a single god over any other but worship them all equally. I kinda like Chaos in all its Glory, it's more of a statement than Chaos Undivided, which is seems technical and pragmatic. Ideally, we'd just keep it as Chaos and nothing else, but that got a little confusing when writing about Marks of Chaos in general, and Marks of other gods...



a final word from Gav.




I hope you understand some of our reasons a little better. I know that some players won't agree with our reasoning or decisions, but I find that if we can explain some of the principles behind our thinking players are less likely to fill in the gaps and make the wrong assumptions.

Slaaneshi Slave
25-08-2007, 18:23
So thats Daemons and some different weapon. Lots?

The_Outsider
25-08-2007, 18:32
How DARE they fix what was a perfectly balanced list!

Chaos needed nerfing hard, the core list was decent but how some things stacked up lead to some game breaking combinations (Siren prince lolz) and now GW fixed it to conform it to how the rest of the other armeis work chaos players are screaming because their army got nerfed.

Fun fact: only chaos players consider this codex a downgrade, everyone else (appears) to call it an improvement on the absolute travesty that was the old codex.

This codex is far more well rounded you powergaming whiners.

dcikgyurt
25-08-2007, 18:33
+++ Comment Removed by the WarSeer Inquisition +++


How DARE they fix what was a perfectly balanced list!

Chaos needed nerfing hard, the core list was decent but how some things stacked up lead to some game breaking combinations (Siren prince lolz) and now GW fixed it to conform it to how the rest of the other armeis work chaos players are screaming because their army got nerfed.

Fun fact: only chaos players consider this codex a downgrade, everyone else (appears) to call it an improvement on the absolute travesty that was the old codex.

This codex is far more well rounded you powergaming whiners.

I'm a chaos player and I agree that the codex needed reworking and in some areas was over-powered. I also think that with the flexibility shifting to units rather than being focused on characters has made the codex more powerful. I'm so spoilt for choice as to what I'm going to field when the new codex comes out that I'm actually struggling to come up with a 1500point list. I just can't decided on what I want.

theluc
25-08-2007, 18:39
the mess it up contest
chaos codex 1996 looks awfully as this one
they killed off cypher and doom rider...after that on whfb hordes of chaos first print almost a riot ...whfb battle 6ed goes and year 7th ed goes out, thats is so silly .. wh40k 4th ed comes by and a full lots of player after some time each complain bout each codex DA BA BT all those failures with the participation of the 2 same guys , yup JJ and gav

andy where are you.....oh gone to blizzard

Cassius im on your side

with that much complaining its clear something is wrong , never before a vast negative reaction had pop up like this one, even when squat gone extinct the reaction was not that loud

ok for the serious of the hobby , well sink thousands, paint for a decade or more .. tweak it to win without being cheese and power playing , try to get pals involved, try to find time for all that . heck 17 years in the hobby plus the gaming plus tournaments and the club.. so long time and not even finish painting minis old of a decade .. so yes at this point it is serious

Bassik
25-08-2007, 19:03
@ Dakkagor: The new codex rocks... but don't tell people to play with some obscure variant army list in the back of a non-related codex, please :)
Hardly anybody would do that

Sarevok
25-08-2007, 19:09
On the whole the aim was "freedom not rules". It's Chaos, for crying out loud; it shouldn't be a mess of overlapping structures and restrictions!

"A mess of overlapping structures and restrictions?" sounds pretty chaotic to me!
They should have brought in MORE structures and restrictions to please Tzeentch!

Damien 1427
25-08-2007, 19:09
This codex is far more well rounded you powergaming whiners.[/rant]

Oh yes, because Great Weapons and Daemonic Fire were sooo game-breaking. Oh no, he's got bionics! A Daemon Prince without wings, run for it lads! A slow moving box on legs that ignores crew stunned and shaken! Whatever shall we do?

As I keep saying, yes, Legion lists were broken. Yes, Cult Lists needed reworking. The new list seems to have removed that problem, along with what I loved so much about the old list. That is to say, the ability to tailor my characters and army to reflect the background. I think I can sleep at night knowing I can't bring a whole four Dreadnoughts to a game, along with a squad of Possessed and a ridiculously expensive squad of Chosen.
What does tickle me is that some of the biggest moans about Iron Warriors are now open to every Tom, Dick and Harry. That is to say, nine Obliterators or stolen Artillery. Except people can now field more tank-based artillery than we could. Crazy, that.

Saying we're all powergaming whiners is akin to saying every Eldar player ran a Seer Convention or every Marine player runs a Rending Pony Farm. Nice to use as a basis to make attacks on legitimate criticism, not really got any substance.

Oh, and real classy analogy, Dakkagor. Nice to compare us to child molestors. Real classy. :rolleyes:

Wintermute
25-08-2007, 20:16
I had to temporarily close this thread to delete a number of posts, one contained a very serious flame aimed at another member, and a few less serious flames in response.

Flaming is not tolerated on WarSeer. If there is any more flaming or insulting comments made, or any further breaches of oue rules made on this thread, I will close it.

Wintermute
The WarSeer Inquisition

Darkangeldentist
25-08-2007, 21:13
Thank you Vaktathi for your post. The replies from Gav were interesting.

Two points stick in my mind from reading them though.

First on the point about chaos undivided vs chaos glory. The perception people had on the basic mark of chaos was always poor. To make a frivolous remark it was always the "mark of chaos undecided" for me. Now that they've removed fearless as a bonus to all other marks it's become a lot more attractive and the name change just makes it stick out more.
Second point goes the other way. His reply about Kharn's always hit on a 2+ regardless was blunt and damned silly. "I can't see anything wrong with it.":(

Gav like Jervis is to me a good choice for approving and setting the direction or feel or a codex/army. However when it comes to rules they have polar opposite blind spots. Both have published plenty of books for GW and they keep making the same blunders. With Gav at the helm there seem to be power combo's that are just unbalanced and with Jervis anything special gets some very peculiar points cost or special rule. Sometimes this has worked out well or at least ok.

The previous chaos codex was a god-damned amazing bumper-box of toys which unfortunately meant other people just didn't want to play against it sometimes. Too much choice and benefits for no-way near enough cost (both in terms of points and army ability). Jury should still be out for good couple of months on the new one before we can really be sure how this one's turned out.

Again thanks to Vaktathi to his post.

Vaktathi
25-08-2007, 22:02
His reply about Kharn's always hit on a 2+ regardless was blunt and damned silly. "I can't see anything wrong with it."

aack, my fault, I cut the reply too short when I copy pasted too much , there was a comma after that


At first glance, I cannot see any reason why vehicles would not be hit on a 2+, regardless of speed or type. Further investigation may prove otherwise!

ChaosReigns
25-08-2007, 22:05
Holy geez. How did you say you contacted Gav? We have a great deal to discuss methinks. :p

Vaktathi
25-08-2007, 22:09
He posts on here, just send him a PM and be reasonable (don't rant or flame) and he usually responds within a couple days.

Alpharius
25-08-2007, 22:10
GavT:

"The removal of Legion-specific rules seems to be causing the most contention, which we expected. However, I think in the longer term giving ourselves the option of producing proper, full Codexes for the most interesting and different Legions is very exciting. For example, imagine a full 20+ page background section and unique army list for the World Eaters, with specific troop types and war engines, for which we actually produce models? That is a much better way to treat these iconic forces than a half-job variant army list and a couple of paragraphs of background."

This will be nice, if it ever comes about (talk about PERFECT fodder for a series of IA articles in WD! That would move a few extra copies, I'd think!).

I'm a bit worried about the "most interesting and different Legions" comment. Would the Alpha Legion qualify as "interesting" and/or "different" enough?

Or, maybe I'm reading too much into this.

The good news is that GW is well aware of the grumbling and disappointment over the loss of Traitor Legion rules, and just might do something about it.

Eventually.

ChaosReigns
25-08-2007, 22:16
I won't rant or flame. :p

I have a ton of questions though.

theluc
25-08-2007, 22:56
well with all the supposivly good point repeated endlessly and mostly different complaints, that do not cease to surpass the limited good points

each unit in the codex had been attacked

the core codex it self

the lack of ..well everything

the useless units like possessed spawn and again dready

re-rolls ld on fearless units

cheesyness

easy to abuse

lash o DP soc

aww there so much ill go watch tv

Lindworm
25-08-2007, 23:02
I'm a bit worried about the "most interesting and different Legions" comment. Would the Alpha Legion qualify as "interesting" and/or "different" enough?
Ideologically they apparently have different objectives than mainstream chaos and cult legions, so I would think so... eventually, although probably at the end of the "to-do" list of sub-chaos codexs.

DhaosAndy
25-08-2007, 23:29
"Poppycock. You're not the only EC player to peddle this line, but it's been pretty well established by leveler heads that EC players don't have to lose that many models out of their current armies. Got Terminators and Bikes with sonic weapons? That's not a problem - since that's not an available upgrade for them now, they have what Terminators and Bikes come with. No one will be confused about that. Ditto Predators with Blastmasters - they can count as autocannons or lascannons, whichever you see fit. The only real loss EC players are suffering is blastmaster-Havocs, so you might wind up with a handful more figures with blastmasters than you can use in any given game. However, you replace those figures with figures toting missile launchers, and your army is good to go again."

Incorrect, if you have sonic weaponry on a terminator, etc you can only use counts as if and only if you have no sonic weapons anywhere else in the army that are counting as sonic weapons (since most peoples source of sonic weapons was noise marine models) else you are in breach of wysiwyg and counts as. This is a simple fact, you may not like it, but that has no effect on the facts.

Satone
25-08-2007, 23:34
There is one and only one real problem with this book and its the icons in squads if your icon bearer dies you lose the bonus, little bit pointless if you ask me, The codex on a whole, how on earth can you complain, oh no they took away some wargear no one used or bits that were so powerful that chaos was just a cheese list. Oh no, so what, this list is balanced, cheese and a little of what true chaos players want to make it, yeah some peoples models have been rendered useless and lots of you dont want to use counts as, but thats just something that happens, either play with counts as, change the models (hell who doesn`t have spare`s?), or in the extreme play something else, but come on ppl, it aint the end of chaos, its there new beginning. WE ARE RETURNED indeed!

dcikgyurt
25-08-2007, 23:46
As far as having to buy new models goes: some of us are already buying new models in light of the new codex. I've just finished painting my new predator and I'm planning on buying a box of thousand sons in a fortnights time. I don't have to buy these models, all my current models are completely legal under in the new codex. For those of you who are losing models, buy more to replace them. Just remember though, the points cost of most models has gone up so you may not even need to buy them.

scarvet
26-08-2007, 00:01
I think it will be really cool if they can release some more WD codices....
However, I also don't understand why 40k need so many codices for the same race compare to fantasy. In fantasy, the thing that really make a difference, other them those unbalance SoC list, is the colour scheme.
I guess its just more attention to the more popular product, but Necron before Dark Eldar? come on, the tau codex p!$$ enough other xeno players already.

HiveTrygon
26-08-2007, 01:10
My god that is the best thing I have ever heard Gav say. I'm not the biggest fan of him but if he is doing what is said here I just did a 180% turn and became his fanboy.

This might suck to those of us who like our mixed armies and legions for now but if he gets Codex: Daemons, death guard, world eaters, etc. out down the road that would allow possibly more fluff to hit the chaos shelves.

I own the old lost and the damned books from way, way back and he might come close to getting that feel back. Good luck Gav if your reading. ;)

Iracundus
26-08-2007, 02:42
He only said the possibility of Codex World Eaters and the like, not that they would necessarily do it. They may never end up doing it. Also there is the problem of yet more MEQ sub codices, while Xenos players still wait for equivalent things like individual Ork Klans and Craftworlds or get brushed off with "simulate it with the basic list." Having spike MEQ sub codices vs. Imperial MEQ sub codices just turns the 40K game even more into just MEQ vs. MEQ, which is boring.

Zerosoul
26-08-2007, 03:15
Incorrect, if you have sonic weaponry on a terminator, etc you can only use counts as if and only if you have no sonic weapons anywhere else in the army that are counting as sonic weapons (since most peoples source of sonic weapons was noise marine models) else you are in breach of wysiwyg and counts as. This is a simple fact, you may not like it, but that has no effect on the facts.

Can you point to me the official written rules on "counts-as"? Since you seem to have them and all, I would love it if you could share.

Alpharius
26-08-2007, 03:50
My god that is the best thing I have ever heard Gav say. I'm not the biggest fan of him but if he is doing what is said here I just did a 180% turn and became his fanboy.

This might suck to those of us who like our mixed armies and legions for now but if he gets Codex: Daemons, death guard, world eaters, etc. out down the road that would allow possibly more fluff to hit the chaos shelves.

I own the old lost and the damned books from way, way back and he might come close to getting that feel back. Good luck Gav if your reading. ;)

Don't start celebrating just yet.

Sounds as if our best bet is to keep letting GW know (somehow) that we're really not that happy with the way the Traitor Legions are now represented and maybe we'll see something, sometime in the (probably way) distant future.

It could happen, after all. Remember when Jervis took Space Marine/Titan Legions (Fun, complicated, flavorful game)and turned everything into "Guns" and "Big Guns" (A good, if bland game system that ripped the heart and soul out of what had come before)?

GW eventually relented and met the old fans somewhere in the middle.

Of course, by then the damage was already done...

Lord_Squinty
26-08-2007, 04:06
First off - I han't read all the posts.....

If this has already been said - I apologise for repeating.
I have read the new codex.
While not perfect (I prefer the old Khorne can't ally with slaanesh etc)
I have to say the new rules are MILES better.

The only people who will be complaining are the IW / other cheesy MUST WIN armies.

Anybody who plays for FUN will be quite happy - there are still *as I have previously posted* EVIL ways of using the codex, but not *from what i've seen so far* abusive lists like we're used to....

All good..

Hellebore
26-08-2007, 04:07
Don't start celebrating just yet.

Sounds as if our best bet is to keep letting GW know (somehow) that we're really not that happy with the way the Traitor Legions are now represented and maybe we'll see something, sometime in the (probably way) distant future.

It could happen, after all. Remember when Jervis took Space Marine/Titan Legions (Fun, complicated, flavorful game)and turned everything into "Guns" and "Big Guns" (A good, if bland game system that ripped the heart and soul out of what had come before)?

GW eventually relented and met the old fans somewhere in the middle.

Of course, by then the damage was already done...


You do realise that Jervis Johnson was involved in the development of all 4 editions of EPIC right? And he is the main author of the 4th edition? He was invovled in the development of the 3rd edition, but if you wish to blame him for its shortcomings, then you need to praise him for 1st, 2nd, and 4th ed as well...

Hellebore

Joewrightgm
26-08-2007, 04:08
I like that Gav is willing to answer honest well put-together questions about the codex.

I'm very happy with his reasons for doing what he and Alessio did to the Chaos Codex.

Grand Master Raziel
26-08-2007, 04:37
What does tickle me is that some of the biggest moans about Iron Warriors are now open to every Tom, Dick and Harry. That is to say, nine Obliterators or stolen Artillery. Except people can now field more tank-based artillery than we could. Crazy, that.


Yes, with the new Dex all Chaos players can field 9 Oblits if they fancy doing so. However, if they do, that's what they've got for Heavy Support. We won't be seeing any more armies with 9 Oblits and a bunch of Havoc Squads, Mutated Hull-Predators, or indirect fire pie plate-slingers. That's an overall improvement as far as balance is concerned.

As far as tank-base artillery goes, the distinction between ordnance on a Vindicator and ordnance on a Defiler is a pretty slim one, especially with Defilers getting Fleet. That gives them almost the same movement profile as a tank, except that terrain only slows them down instead of possibly immobilizing them as could happen with a tank.



Incorrect, if you have sonic weaponry on a terminator, etc you can only use counts as if and only if you have no sonic weapons anywhere else in the army that are counting as sonic weapons (since most peoples source of sonic weapons was noise marine models) else you are in breach of wysiwyg and counts as. This is a simple fact, you may not like it, but that has no effect on the facts.

Hey, if you insist on maintaining your martyrdom complex, there's nothing I can do to stop you. However, it seems to me that the models in question being Terminators or Bikes trumps the teeny tiny little sonic blaster bitz you may have stuck on them when you converted them. Chaos Terminators get combi-bolters. Therefore, if you see a Chaos Terminator on the table, you're going to figure it has a combi-bolter. If you get a player who is both astute enough to notice that they happen to be toting sonic blasters and is new enough to the game to not know that the previous dex allowed EC Termies to tote such weapons, then I can see the conversation going somewhat like this:

Newbie Player: Hey, it looks like those Terminators are toting sonic blasters. I didn't know they could take those!

Vet Chaos Player: Well, they can't, but they used to be able to. I made these models under the old rules. I want to keep using the figures, but I don't want to chop them up.

Newbie Player: So, what are they armed with?

Vet Chaos Player: Combi bolters, just like any other Chaos Terminator.

Newbie Player: Gotcha. Game on.

I really don't see the reason to be hard done by because you'll have to have the above conversation every once in a while, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

Belisarius
26-08-2007, 05:26
I actually found some of Gav's thoughts on the matter disturbing. They knew the non inclusion of legion rules in any form would be wildly unpopular yet they did it anyways without a concrete plan such as IA or CA articles in WD to supplement the codex. Says a lot about the value of the non newbie player to the hobby that GW holds us in. And that right there is disturbing.

Also to all those who love the new dex, be prepared to cry, weep now for the ungodly lists that I've seen coming are not going to be fun and you will find no variance in Chaos armies in tournaments. Two winged princes each with the lash, three vindicators, a squad of plauge marines a squad or two of berserkers and a few things thrown in to call it fluffy. sick.

unclejimbo827
26-08-2007, 05:50
On the whole the aim was "freedom not rules". It's Chaos, for crying out loud; it shouldn't be a mess of overlapping structures and restrictions!


er... what? It's chaos so it should all be the same? I r confuzzled. :confused:

That's good that they're planning on cult books. Kind of what I expected, but oh well.

Halcyon504
26-08-2007, 09:16
From what I hear about the new book, I'm personally liking it. I liked the old Legion rules, which is what originally attracted me to Chaos, but I'm very glad that Legion rules may be coming back in the form of codecies. My only hope is that there's a Word Bearers one, either in a full book or a WD article. :D

leonmallett
26-08-2007, 10:11
Overall I like it. The codex seems (as do most of the books from Tyranids onwards) to be geared towards building an army, rather than a collection of uber-killy units lumped in with compulsory choices. It seems balanced and not overly concerned with minutae, which when ill-conceived can lead to a lack of balance, which is what we saw in the last iteration of C: CSM. This is the codex that may prompt me to finally start a CSM army. And not just because I bought one of those army deal bundles with the book, either... ;)

fwacho
26-08-2007, 10:15
Vaktathi....
Those questions Gav answered should have been printed in Whitedwarf, right after the modeler's imput. It would have made for great reading.

I'm not a Chaos Player, but I used to try to avouid playing against them as I always felt that whatever I was using I was going to get mugged by a winged bloodthirster or demon prince. playing against a reasonable list will be a nice surprise.

It will alse be nice to be able to focus firepower and eliminate icon bearers. (I assume with icons gone so is ther affect right?) anybody care to answer that who has seen the codex?

I like the game GW has produced. admittadly I can't always find opponents (which is why I'm thankful to get pounded by the occasional abused list) but the game is reasonably streamlines that i can get done before I have to go do somethign else.

Vineas
26-08-2007, 10:16
I'm just glad to see some of the old fluffy units comeback like WE havocs and DG havocs.

Here's hoping the Codex:Daemons reintroduces UNITS of Juggers and that they get a sexy new plastic model :)

Delicious Soy
26-08-2007, 10:29
I'm just glad to see some of the old fluffy units comeback like WE havocs and DG havocs.

Here's hoping the Codex:Daemons reintroduces UNITS of Juggers and that they get a sexy new plastic model :)
Pardon my cynicism but to me the Daemon codex will be the 40k equivalent of beasts of chaos: a few new models but relying primarily on old ones.

What is truly disturbing is this idea of simplicity for chaos. To me chaos is about variability, randomness and general wackiness. Such things cannot be expressed in non-complicated terms. Perhaps if GW admitted this in the design process they could have created something that catered to a broader slice of players. Even Gav admits what they did was going to offend a bunch of people they encouraged to build cult or legion armies, rules for which existed for at least 2 years before 3.5 was released. Instead they give a cold reasurance that maybe, sometime, if we buy lots of stuff, players might get a cult codex to do 'true' justice. True justice would've been addressing issues rather than wantonly discarding them into the too hard basket.

dcikgyurt
26-08-2007, 10:40
Considering how much is in the new codex, they couldn't have put rules for God-specific daemons and Cult Legions in there without making the book huge (at 104 pages it's a bit of a tome already) and all the non-chaos players would have complained that their codices weren't as big and didn't have enough in them (Eldar with Craftworlds for example). You have to understand that there is only so much they can put in a book before they have to get Black Industries to publish it for them (something to do with British publishing laws, don't ask). Just be thankful that you've got a new codex. Orks, Dark Eldar and Guard have been waiting for a new Codex each for a lot longer than you have.

Shibboleth
26-08-2007, 10:48
I'm very happy to hear all that Gav has said on this.
I just wish these things were said up front when rumours first started to fly.

All along I thought the only way this new Codex will make sense is if there is going to be Cult specific Codexes further down the track, and now we hear Gav say that is indeed what they were thinking...

The fact he stated that to leave the Legions without the fluff, rules and model support they deserve would 'border on criminal' shows they aren't as out of touch with the community as we thought - yet they let us dangle thinking they actually had done such a 'criminal' thing... (of course the psychophants still kissed their butts).

Maintaining a secretive image may be cool for them, but it's generated a bunch of unecessary hate that could have been pre-emptively extinguished if they'd 'explained the principles behind their thinking' a lot earlier.

All that aside, things make much more sense now, even if the Cult specific codexes don't happen, because at least we know this Codex wasn't meant to cover them perfectly anyway, and for what it is, it's just right.

Born Again
26-08-2007, 11:05
Daemon legion codex was good enough, but cult specific codecies? Yay! *does happy dance*

Damien 1427
26-08-2007, 11:29
Daemon legion codex was good enough, but cult specific codecies? Yay! *does happy dance*

Thing is, and this applies to everyone going "Oh well, we'll just wait for our cult book down the line". May I ask where Warhammer Armies - Engines of Chaos is? It was mentioned as the next phase in the Fantasy Chaos series in Beasts of Chaos... How long ago was that?

Despite what Gav is saying, don't hold your breath. If that track record for books like this is anything to go by, it'll either never come to pass, or maybe one or two Cults will get it before the next Codex rolls around.

squiggoth
26-08-2007, 11:41
It will alse be nice to be able to focus firepower and eliminate icon bearers. (I assume with icons gone so is ther affect right?) anybody care to answer that who has seen the codex?

Yup, Icon-marked troops are newbies and loose their god's favour when they drop the flag, whilst cult troops (Berzekers, Rubrics, Noise- and Plague Marines) are all individually marked, and won't lose their gifts like the newbie troops.

Easy E
26-08-2007, 11:44
I am skeptical about their ability to produce additonal Cult Legion books in the future. Many times, I have seen GW promise to support this or that release in WD with additional articles or additional codex books. With the end of Chapter Approved and studio staff/budget cuts, I don't believe any of it.

Delicious Soy
26-08-2007, 12:02
Considering how much is in the new codex, they couldn't have put rules for God-specific daemons and Cult Legions in there without making the book huge (at 104 pages it's a bit of a tome already) and all the non-chaos players would have complained that their codices weren't as big and didn't have enough in them (Eldar with Craftworlds for example). You have to understand that there is only so much they can put in a book before they have to get Black Industries to publish it for them (something to do with British publishing laws, don't ask). Just be thankful that you've got a new codex. Orks, Dark Eldar and Guard have been waiting for a new Codex each for a lot longer than you have. Like the howls of complaint in 2nd ed? 2nd Chaos worked because it was twice the size of the other codicies so it could provide reasonable cover to what is always going to be the army with the broadest scope. Like I said earlier, if GW simply admitted that and set about creating the chaos list without such an emphasis on page numbers, they might actually create a list that isn't compromised for the sake of brevity.

Gazak Blacktoof
26-08-2007, 12:42
I doubt they'll be releasing the legion codexes any time soon. Gav said there were no plans to date which puts them in the pipe dream bracket of armies such as kislev and araby.

There's precious little shelf space for all the marines at the moment so they'd likely be splash release conversion kits and a few metals, nothing that somebody can't convert as it stands.

If legion armies were released I'd rather see them move to a support role as per the background. Cult armies should be rendered down to a handful of elite marines and human devotes. Chaos specialise in planet wide insurrection rather than full scale assault by the legions. The legions only come out en-mass during black crusades and we've just had one of those so "present day" 40K battles shouldn't be about the legions. From what I've read this is going to be the format for the forgeworld based chaos invasion force, a much more interesting prospect as a "realistic" army.

My preference would be for more xenos rather than more production time and shelf space devoted to yet another batch of marine/ imperial based codexes.

If any new imperial armies need to be done its the last inquisition book and the ad-mech who might actually add something new and interesting rather than recycling existing rules. Throw a couple of options for marks in with the admech book and rules for a couple of daemon engines and you've got a dark mechanicus list too.

Marius Xerxes
26-08-2007, 14:20
All I have to say, after having gotten the Codex last night..

Anyone who has it and thinks it sucks, is tactically backwards. This new dex, as the army as a whole is far superior then the old one. No you may not be able to trick out random spikes to do this or that.. but the overall rules for units and what they come standard with is incredible. I, for one, am totally satisfied.

leonmallett
26-08-2007, 15:13
Pardon my cynicism but to me the Daemon codex will be the 40k equivalent of beasts of chaos: a few new models but relying primarily on old ones.
...

I was under the impression that we are getting plastic (lesser) deamons. That would make sense if Codex: Deamons and WH Armies: Chaos-whatver come out next year. The spawn kits are designed for both systems and look to show the possibilities.

DhaosAndy
26-08-2007, 15:28
"All I have to say, after having gotten the Codex last night..

Anyone who has it and thinks it sucks, is tactically backwards. This new dex, as the army as a whole is far superior then the old one. No you may not be able to trick out random spikes to do this or that.. but the overall rules for units and what they come standard with is incredible. I, for one, am totally satisfied."

Well I have had the codex since last Tuesday and I've never been more disappointed with any GW publication.

I'm not tactically backwards either, between the loss of daemons, cult terminators & bikers, etc over half of my chaos army has been effectively written out.

If the codex was half decent I'd still be happy, but no. The faults and inadequacies are almost too numerous to list, but here's one to ruminate on.

Psychic powers, you read them, you think funky, then reality hits, between psychic hoods nullifying them at least 75%+ of the time and eldar forcing you to roll 3d6 to cast forget it. Gadafla the lot of 'em. On the same subject;

Tzeentch master of magic, supreme sorcerer, ability to defend against magical/psychic attack nil :wtf:

Khorne the hater of sorcerer antithesis of the magical, 1 special character is immune otherwise, no defence :confused:

I'm no ones fool, I managed too win a few games with the 3.1 codex, no doubt I'll manage a few with this one because I must, chaos is not one of my 40k armies, it's all my 40k armies:eek:

Shibboleth
26-08-2007, 15:39
...between the loss of daemons, cult terminators & bikers, etc over half of my chaos army has been effectively written out. ...They haven't been written out, they are just yet to be written in. They're on temporary hold, for an unspecified, indefinite time period... awaiting their own Codex...
which may or may not happen...
Either way it's nothing to do with this new Codex because they were never intended to be in it. :angel:

Lindworm
26-08-2007, 15:43
Having spike MEQ sub codices vs. Imperial MEQ sub codices just turns the 40K game even more into just MEQ vs. MEQ, which is boring.
Uh, to all who say this... You realise that the overwhelming majority of players have armies that are space marine or chaos legions anyway. So it won't exactly change anything if they bring out more "MEQ" codexs, especially if a more generic chaos codex makes gamers want specific-legion detail, like the emperor's children.

grickherder
27-08-2007, 20:19
Daemons are "generic", and are broken into Summoned Greater Daemons and Summoned Daemons. They have one profile for each type and can be considered almost like a spell effect. Codex: Chaos Daemons will be released several months after Codex: Chaos Space Marines for those who love their Chaos Daemons and want to field Daemonic Legion armies.

I actually like the description of the daemons as a "spell like effect." I think this idea deserves consideration on its own merits rather than how well the generic lesser daemons do and do not produce the results of the old rules. The generic daemons, as they are, are actually pretty cool. It's only when people expect them to be like the old rules for daemonettes, bloodletters, etc., that they seem to disappoint. I think all those daemons will make an appearance in the Codex: Daemons book. So as an isolated mechanic and spell like effect, the lesser daemons are pretty awesome. I think they'll prove quite effective on the table top, even without rending, power weapons, etc.,. The modeling options are as wide, if not wider, than before. You could do anything from single/double based nurglings to skaven, to plastic beastmen, without the opponent having to go "what are those?" or "I don't see enough armour to be WYSIWYG with the blood letter's brass armour."

While I still think that there are fundamental flaws with 40k itself (primarily as a result of the turn structure where one player does everything while the other one stands around), I do like the direction the last few codexes have gone in. As someone who got into 40k in 2nd edition, was unimpressed for the bulk of third, the general feel of the latest codexes feels a lot more in line with what I liked about 2nd edition. Such as:


The Chaos Sace Marines frames have been re-tooled along similar lines to the Space Marines and so the updated box comes with ten-man squads. The principle is for players to make choices about their army on a much more unit-by-unit level rather than individual models. By limiting heavy weapons in the basic squads, players have more incentive to look at Predators, Havocs, Obliterators and such. Multiple small units having access to heavier weapons undercuts the role of other parts of the army.

I actually think that's a great approach. There's been just two many 6 man squads with tons of heavy/special weapons. Combined with veteran skills, things just got a bit sick. There's a distinct tactical advantage to multiple small units when you have issues like leadership and numbers under control. A mark of chaos undivided and using all 6 troop slots certainly did that.

I also like the focus on choosing units rather than single models. The combat squad rules in the DA/BA codexes are another step in the right direction. It's now not a matter of tweaking numbers for maximum effectiveness but taking units.

I'm not usually one to be kind to GW on these forums, but I think that their design decisions over the last batch of codexes has been spot on. For the most part, they removed arbitrary 0-1 restrictions, made named characters more viable by sticking them right into HQ choices (I never understood why they devalued their own product by making something "opponent's permission only" which implies it's not to be used for regular games). I really like the latest tyranid codex.

Now if they would just fix the turn structure to help create some actual fire and maneuver tactics, things would be great. Unit by unit activation, reaction fire, each player alternating entire phases-- anything but the move-shoot-assault with the entire army while the other person waits and can do nothing but remove models off the table in turn 1 because they lost a single die roll.

Sovereign
27-08-2007, 20:24
I hope to god they don't do another four legion codexes. Seriously, there's already five marine codexes - we don't need an equal number of CSM ones. By all means, they should do them in WD, but for god sake, No more marine 'dexes.
Actually, we do. It's the only "fair" way for GW to give the Cult players what they want - high-detail chromey rules without unbalancing the basic CSM book too much. Plus, they get to charge $20 more...

Sons of Russ
27-08-2007, 22:26
Spot on , Grickherder!




How ironic.


Ahhh, how ironic you have an Iron Warrior Banner as your avatar...

4x Heavy Support-much?:angel:

grickherder
27-08-2007, 23:25
I've always thought that to evaluate rules, you need to be able to see how well they meet the design goals for the rules. Do they meet the design goals? Are they fun for all participants? Those are questions to determine the merit of the rules. The wrong approach entirely would be "do the rules meet the design goals from a previous codex?".

Now people having their models invalidated are certainly right to be pissed off. Or atleast as long as it's a GW kit that got invalidated. Conversions are another matter as GW can't support every possible combination of bitz we could come up with no matter how hard they tried. Is there anything in the new codex that invalidates a unit as GW sells it or has sold it during the life of the last codex?

LatD players have the right to be a bit annoyed. They were at the forefront of the Eye of Terror campaign, supporting GW's big global event by making these cool traitor/mutant armies. There is no reason whatsoever that GW shouldn't produce a free PDF that tells how the new codex works with the Lost and the Damned.

Sovereign
28-08-2007, 00:46
I suspect the majority of LatD armies can be played as though they were IG with Inquisitional allies.

grickherder
28-08-2007, 02:04
While I do agree that you can find ways around the new codex not fitting with Latd (like the one you mentioned) my point was that the Eye of Terror campaign was a big thing and traitor guard armies were something that were talked about for quite some time. There's simply no reason to devalue people's armies in the eyes of others when you could simply release a single page PDF outlining how it fits with the new codex. Latd references the chaos codex suprisingly few times and it would be a simple thing for GW to do. It's easy enough to house rule, but without GW putting out a simple little pdf, Latd players have their army appear less valid/official/tournament legal in the eyes of others and tournament organizers (as much as I hate any reference whatsoever to "official" or "tournament legal"). White Dwarf is also severely lacking in quality content-- this would also make an ideal page for that.

The point in raising latd though was not to derail this thread. I'm merely commenting on how little a chaos player has to complain about invalidated models compared to an Latd player-- especially when it would take so little effort on GW's behalf to not do so.

leonmallett
28-08-2007, 02:19
Having built about 1000 pts of LatD I am quietly hoping they will be contained within Codex: Deamons as cults to summon the creatures.

I also have a 13th Company army.... :(

grizzly ruin
28-08-2007, 10:20
First off thanks to Vaktathi for sending a well thought out set of questions to Gav and thanks to Gav for at least responding.




with regards to min 10man size for chaos troops to take heavy weapons

The Chaos Sace Marines frames have been re-tooled along similar lines to the Space Marines and so the updated box comes with ten-man squads. The principle is for players to make choices about their army on a much more unit-by-unit level rather than individual models. By limiting heavy weapons in the basic squads, players have more incentive to look at Predators, Havocs, Obliterators and such. Multiple small units having access to heavier weapons undercuts the role of other parts of the army.


1) People were already looking at Obliterators and Havocs and using them extensively, now they will look at Havocs less because Obliterators are the only cost effective way of getting Lascannons into the list. It would have helped if Havocs could have taken Tank Hunters, but they can't - it would have helped if the prices on Heavy Weapons weren't insane, but they are.

2) Who was making individual model choices saying "Chaos Fred here really needs a Lascannon"? We were making choices by unit, and taking 10 men to field one heavy weapon is a bad choice for a unit as a whole.

3) If multiple small heavy weapon squads undercuts the role of other parts of the army, how does that work out for DA & BA who can basically do exactly that (i.e. take multiple small heavy weapon squads)- thereby undercutting the roles of other parts of the army like Devs, Preds, etc.?





changes to Oblits and unit Statlines


Again, this is about giving the Obliterators a more defined role, and also to address a more system-wide problem with the escalation of profiles. The Obliterators main strength is their versatility, and while they remained outrageously tough this meant that Plague Marines would have to be even tougher to show their strength. This could have developed into an internal 'arms race' with units all competing for the same ground in people's armies rather than having a place and role to fulfil. All of the changes, to the squads in particular, should be taken as a whole. We've removed lots of the special rules that 'cluttered' the army list and added much more definition to each unit with simple but significant differences between them.

I will say that they did make effort in that direction, to make each unit distinct. And that's an admirable goal.

However, it does not justify several units becoming distinctly bad.

I also don't understand why 20 something point Plague Marines that you can take large units of need to be even tougher than 70 something point Obliterators who can only be taken in units of 3.

The two clearly have completely different roles in a force, and since they both occupy different force org slots they wouldn't exactly be competing with each other.




Secondly, since the re-write of the Codexes back in 3rd edition, we 'flattened' all of the profiles so that Toughness 5 was remarkable and limited to very few troop types. This is because the system used Imperial Guardsmen (the average human) as a benchmark, but over the years the prevalence of WS, BS4, S4, T4, 3+ armour save Space Marines seems to have shifted that middle ground in people's perceptions. If an Obliterator is T5, then surely a Daemon Prince should be T6, a Great Unclean One T7? So, the escalation continues to pull the system away from its founding principles. T4 is meant to be better-than-average, but at the moment that's not very obvious.

That I can understand at least, even if I don't agree with it's application to Obliterators not being 4(5).

However, I actually do think Daemon Princes should be T6. Why are they less resilient than Tyranid MCs who are on the whole both tougher and more versatile and can be taken in droves?




Dreadnaught fire frenzy changes

It's only more dangerous if you're too close! Firing twice is more dangerous to the opponent in the right circumstances. This was simply a step back towards the Dreadmoughts of the original 2nd edition Codex, making them unpredictable but potentially deadly.

Since CSM can't drop pod their Dreads how is the Dread supposed to not be close without giving up deployment prospects?

Not to mention that it's always dangerous since it exposes it's own backside to the enemy.

Either way, you're losing your own troops to the random roll of a die and not due to actual tactics or lack there of.

Taking the control of a unit out of a players hands with a random dice roll just always seems like a bad idea to me.

There's also no mention of why they removed the extra attacks from Blood Rage. Wouldn't that fit with the unpredictable but potentially deadly mold they seem to want CSM dreads to fit?

In the end, all that will happen is you'll see even less CSM dreads than there were before. Surely that can't be a good thing?

Which is something I think needs to be asked when designing a rule; "Will players actually use this?"




Regarding the Defiler, I'm glad players see it more as an assault walker than an indirect-firing tank, as that's more fitting with what it's supposed to be.

Except it was originally designed to be an Ordinance unit.

It just seems like the Land Raider, i.e. trying to do too many roles at once and not doing any of them very well for it's points.

If it was supposed to be an assault walker, it most certainly should have mutated hull.




The removal of Legion-specific rules seems to be causing the most contention, which we expected. However, I think in the longer term giving ourselves the option of producing proper, full Codexes for the most interesting and different Legions is very exciting.

So at best they have left themselves the option of making Legion specific Codexes, and player's until then basically need to just suck it up?

I just find that to be incredibly cold to people who have spent time, money and dedication building armies to play their game.





I hope you understand some of our reasons a little better. I know that some players won't agree with our reasoning or decisions, but I find that if we can explain some of the principles behind our thinking players are less likely to fill in the gaps and make the wrong assumptions.

What I don't understand is how they can justify units like Spawn, and Possesed?

How am I supposed to view these units that are totally unpredictable, and way overcosted when "viewing my army as a whole"?

How should I view the creation of a Khornate Daemon Weapon that has almost a 1/3rd Chance of causing havoc for the Lord who wields it?



I don't understand how it makes sense to make Obliterators less tough so they don't compete with the role of "tough" against Plague Marines, so every unit can be distintive and yet Chaos Lords with Daemon Weapons, Dreadnoughts, Possesed and Spawn all share the same fate of overcosted random rules.

What is distinct about several units all gaining the "unpreditcable but potentially deadly" problem , along with an unexplainable price increase for having what is efectively a disadvantage that relegates them to non-use?

gorgon
28-08-2007, 11:23
I doubt they'll be releasing the legion codexes any time soon. Gav said there were no plans to date which puts them in the pipe dream bracket of armies such as kislev and araby.

I agree. He's just telling the customers what they want to hear. Do the math. Considering Orks, Daemons (grr!), DE and Necrons are already rumored to be on the way, that points to the first (possible) Legion-specific book in 2009, maybe even 2010 when you add in a new edition and more supplements like CoD and Apocalypse.

It's asking a lot from customers to expect them to wait years before their army gets supported properly. Who knows how the landscape will look in 2010? There could be an entirely different design team. GW might be a Hasbro subsidiary and 5th ed. 40K might be a clix game. How do I know I'm even going to be alive? :)

This is just the usual GW broken record about the new codex being far superior to the old one. I don't get aggravated about that...they're just trying to sell product. But what gets insulting after a while is hearing them say they're giving us what we want. In reality, they intentionally shake up army lists and systems to make us buy more models (they are a business, after all) and then tell us that's what we want.

Case in point -- until GW told us what a great idea genericized daemons are, I don't think anyone here wanted them or even conceived they'd do such a thing. And now players have plenty of incentive to spend points (and $$$) on regular CSMs.

Alpharius
28-08-2007, 11:25
You do realise that Jervis Johnson was involved in the development of all 4 editions of EPIC right? And he is the main author of the 4th edition? He was invovled in the development of the 3rd edition, but if you wish to blame him for its shortcomings, then you need to praise him for 1st, 2nd, and 4th ed as well...

Hellebore


Even better!

Never played 1st (Adeptus Titanicus? Just a little before my time...)

Loved 2nd (Space Marine/Titan Legions)

Hated 3rd (Epic 40k)

Never played 4th (Epic: Armageddon) probably because my local gaming scene had moved on after the 3rd edition debacle.

Moral of this story: GW (and Jervis!) have shown the ability to actually recognize when theyíve made a mistake (Epic 3rd) and then actually try to correct it (Epic 4th)!

Wow!

So, thereís hope (because, yes, I do believe that this latest Codexís treatment of the Traitor Legions IS a mistake.)

gorgon
28-08-2007, 11:27
I suspect the majority of LatD armies can be played as though they were IG with Inquisitional allies.

Nope, not really. That shows you don't play or understand the army. But don't feel bad...the design team doesn't either! :D That's why we're trying to educate them. ;)

LatD are a great example of how players really are up $hit creek without a paddle if they lack an advocate for their army in the design studio.

Easy E
28-08-2007, 11:37
Yes, just ask the Squats what happens if you don't have an advocate in the studio.

On a happy note, I also like the direction they have taken with the new codex lines. At first, I was highly skeptical of it and felt customization should trump standardization. After getting and playing around with some of the new lists, I think they've done a great job of doing both. The new lists are more standardized, AND very flexible.

Sovereign
28-08-2007, 12:03
1) People were already looking at Obliterators and Havocs and using them extensively, now they will look at Havocs less because Obliterators are the only cost effective way of getting Lascannons into the list. It would have helped if Havocs could have taken Tank Hunters, but they can't - it would have helped if the prices on Heavy Weapons weren't insane, but they are.
Wow, you totally missed the point of what's going on here. People were taking Obliterators, because they were getting extra-Tough Devastators with W2 Sv2+/5++I in the Elite slot. Obliterators were so totally brokenly good there was never any point in taking Havocs. Also, if you haven't noticed, 40k4 does away with the discounted Heavy weapons because that's how they're being used.


2) Who was making individual model choices saying "Chaos Fred here really needs a Lascannon"? We were making choices by unit, and taking 10 men to field one heavy weapon is a bad choice for a unit as a whole.
Then take Havocs, with a minimum of 5 men. That is the real difference between Heavy infantry and tactical Troops.


3) If multiple small heavy weapon squads undercuts the role of other parts of the army, how does that work out for DA & BA who can basically do exactly that (i.e. take multiple small heavy weapon squads)- thereby undercutting the roles of other parts of the army like Devs, Preds, etc.?
You know you're not really making sense here? Those MSU Heavy teams don't come from Troops (Las/Plas CSM) or Elites (Obliterators). So as Heavies, the BA/DA Dev Combat Squads don't undercut the role of other SM Heavies like Preds etc. Similarly, Havocs don't undercut the rule of other CSM Heavies.


However, it does not justify several units becoming distinctly bad.
I don't see any units as distinctly "bad". I think that it is likely that *all* of the units are actually good, but that many need to be taken in quantity. I also think that the units you see as "bad" are only so when viewed thru the lens of the most overpowered Codex to be released within the last decade. Just because a unit isn't stupidly overpowered, or has some minor restriction, it isn't bad.


I also don't understand why 20 something point Plague Marines that you can take large units of need to be even tougher than 70 something point Obliterators who can only be taken in units of 3.
Because that's GW's design prerogative and decision?


However, I actually do think Daemon Princes should be T6. Why are they less resilient than Tyranid MCs who are on the whole both tougher and more versatile and can be taken in droves?
Because Nids don't have access to Havocs, Defilers, Dreads, Preds, etc *and* the TMC models are bigger than the DP model?


Since CSM can't drop pod their Dreads how is the Dread supposed to not be close without giving up deployment prospects?
Tactics, perhaps? Or is this the wrong crowd to ask this of?


Not to mention that it's always dangerous since it exposes it's own backside to the enemy.
How so?


Either way, you're losing your own troops to the random roll of a die and not due to actual tactics or lack there of.
Ahem. You only have a 1/6 chance of Fire Frenzy. It doesn't happen every turn! And if you do the smart thing and only have CCWs, the worst that happens is that he double-taps somebody. And even if you have Lascannon, over the course of a game, you *risk* losing a *single* CSM to a crazed Dread!


Taking the control of a unit out of a players hands with a random dice roll just always seems like a bad idea to me.
Then don't field the Dread. OTOH, when he goes berzerk in HtH, I suppose you'll complain about that, too...


In the end, all that will happen is you'll see even less CSM dreads than there were before.
I doubt that. They're a fairly-priced twin Lascannon. Before, Dreads competed with clearly superior Defilers and Preds. Now that they only compete with Chosen & Possessed, they're not a bad pick at all!


Except it was originally designed to be an Ordinance unit.
Did it lose the Ordnance Battlecannon? No? Then don't whine.


It just seems like the Land Raider, i.e. trying to do too many roles at once and not doing any of them very well for it's points.
Oh, please. The Defiler is still an excellent Ordnance unit. Now, it doesn't need minders for HtH, and when things get locked up in HtH, it can move in to support.


If it was supposed to be an assault walker, it most certainly should have mutated hull.
It has Possession. That's pretty good.


So at best they have left themselves the option of making Legion specific Codexes, and player's until then basically need to just suck it up?
Pretty much. Don't worry, I'm sure the DG, EC, TS, and WE players won't have to wait nearly as long as the DE and Ork players for their books.


I just find that to be incredibly cold to people who have spent time, money and dedication building armies to play their game.
GW is in the business of making money, not catering to the whims of spoilt little children... Oh wait...


What I don't understand is how they can justify units like Spawn, and Possesed?
Properly supported by Berzerkers and/or Raptors, 3x 10 Possessed will be very good on the battlefield, I'm quite sure. Similarly, a mob of Spawn would probably do quite well.


How am I supposed to view these units that are totally unpredictable, and way overcosted when "viewing my army as a whole"?
Because they're not totally unpredictable, and not so difficult to support.


How should I view the creation of a Khornate Daemon Weapon that has almost a 1/3rd Chance of causing havoc for the Lord who wields it?
Because it's only 1/3 chance now, instead of 1/wound caused like before? You *did* remember to test for every wound inflicted before, right? You didn't cheat your opponent and "ignore" that Daemon Weapon penalty, did you? Did you?


I don't understand how it makes sense to make Obliterators less tough so they don't compete with the role of "tough" against Plague Marines, so every unit can be distintive and yet Chaos Lords with Daemon Weapons, Dreadnoughts, Possesed and Spawn all share the same fate of overcosted random rules.
Then maybe you need to think a little harder. I haven't looked into the Spawn, but Daemon Weapons, Dreads, and Possessed are all *fair*, playable units.

The fact that they aren't as stupidly, brokenly good as before is a good thing for game balance as a whole. Otherwise, all of the other Codices would have needed to be stepped up significantly in power to match. And from what I see, if others got goodies, you'd be whining about that, too.


What is distinct about several units all gaining the "unpreditcable but potentially deadly" problem , along with an unexplainable price increase for having what is efectively a disadvantage that relegates them to non-use?
If they're that much of a problem for you, don't take them. I think you're probably missing out, but that's the risk of Chaos.

Sovereign
28-08-2007, 12:10
I agree. He's just telling the customers what they want to hear. Do the math. Considering Orks, Daemons (grr!), DE and Necrons are already rumored to be on the way, that points to the first (possible) Legion-specific book in 2009, maybe even 2010 when you add in a new edition and more supplements like CoD and Apocalypse.
So? 2009 seems very reasonable, given that this is releasing at the tail end of 2007. Hopefully, GW does a "Year of Chaos" and releases all 4 books as a block.


It's asking a lot from customers to expect them to wait years before their army gets supported properly.
Have you spoken to any DE or Ork players lately? They've waited a *lot* longer than you have or will.


But what gets insulting after a while is hearing them say they're giving us what we want.
Newsflash, it's not just what the powergamer CSM players want - it's also what their opponents want. And that means:
- clarity of rules
- clarity of options
- balanced army
- balanced units
Imagine that!

dcikgyurt
28-08-2007, 12:41
Newsflash, it's not just what the powergamer CSM players want - it's also what their opponents want. And that means:
- clarity of rules
- clarity of options
- balanced army
- balanced units
Imagine that!

Most chaos players want this as well, we don't like getting tarred with the power-gamer brush.

Pharon
28-08-2007, 12:58
Wow, you totally missed the point of what's going on here. People were taking Obliterators, because they were getting extra-Tough Devastators with W2 Sv2+/5++I in the Elite slot. Obliterators were so totally brokenly good there was never any point in taking Havocs. Also, if you haven't noticed, 40k4 does away with the discounted Heavy weapons because that's how they're being used.

Oblits are still by far the best lascannon platforms chaos has. Field them in units of 2 and the opponent has to put 3 wounds on it to get VPs and reduce them below scoring status. Obliterators can literally fill any role in the game now.



Then take Havocs, with a minimum of 5 men. That is the real difference between Heavy infantry and tactical Troops.

Large squads with a single heavy weapon make sense for armies who's models are relative cheap like IG. CSM's are individually so expensive that large squads toting a heavy weapon are cost prohibitive unless you have something like the combat squad rule. Since they didn't give that rule to CSMs then the heavy weapon option is essentially a useless option and no one likes useless options.



I don't see any units as distinctly "bad". I think that it is likely that *all* of the units are actually good, but that many need to be taken in quantity. I also think that the units you see as "bad" are only so when viewed thru the lens of the most overpowered Codex to be released within the last decade. Just because a unit isn't stupidly overpowered, or has some minor restriction, it isn't bad.

Possessed are bad because other units like chosen are more capable at the role that possessed are explicitly designed to fill. Spawn unless created buy Gift of Chaos serve no real purpose either. Dreadnaughts which are close infantry support units are bad because they have rules which directly detract from the role they are intended to fill. I think every player should have the reasonable assumption that a unit should be good at the role it is designed to fill...even if said role is a highly specialized one.



Ahem. You only have a 1/6 chance of Fire Frenzy. It doesn't happen every turn! And if you do the smart thing and only have CCWs, the worst that happens is that he double-taps somebody. And even if you have Lascannon, over the course of a game, you *risk* losing a *single* CSM to a crazed Dread!

Then don't field the Dread. OTOH, when he goes berzerk in HtH, I suppose you'll complain about that, too...

You have a 1/6 chance of completely losing anything the dread might do for that turn in addition to likely costing you models in the process. So on average each dread is only going to contribute to the battle for 5 of the 6 turns. Additionally, the natural role of the dread is infantry fire support for assault elements of your army. If you surround the dread with standard CSMs then you're spending extra points to work around the dreads flaws. DCCW dreads also suffer from lacking the most important element any assault unit can have...the ability to quickly reach assault. In most cases an assault dread can be ignored for half the game and then negated by either killing it or refusing the flank.



Did it lose the Ordnance Battlecannon? No? Then don't whine.

Oh, please. The Defiler is still an excellent Ordnance unit. Now, it doesn't need minders for HtH, and when things get locked up in HtH, it can move in to support.

It's an armor 12 vehicle toting a high priority target. It will be reliably dead by turn 2. Light armor vehicles are effective when they retain enough firepower to be effective for their point cost but can manage to keep their target priority lower than the tougher vehicles. This is why a dread armed with a lascannon will generally only last 2 turns while a HB dread might very well be alive by turn 4.



Properly supported by Berzerkers and/or Raptors, 3x 10 Possessed will be very good on the battlefield, I'm quite sure. Similarly, a mob of Spawn would probably do quite well.

That's about 800 points worth of possessed. On average only one of those squads is going to have any reliable way of damaging vehicles. Throw in a couple of squads of raptors/Berzerkers and you've allocated probably 1200 points toward your assault element. How many points are you planning on having left for the other aspects of your list?



Because it's only 1/3 chance now, instead of 1/wound caused like before? You *did* remember to test for every wound inflicted before, right? You didn't cheat your opponent and "ignore" that Daemon Weapon penalty, did you? Did you?

You had to fail a mastery test to take a wound with a demon weapon. That's a 1 in 18 chance and you could save it if it you had an invulnerable save. The Khorne demon weapon not only have a 1/3 chance of wounding you but also denying you any attacks in assault. You also only had to take the mastery test if you inflicted at least one casualty...not for every casualty.



The fact that they aren't as stupidly, brokenly good as before is a good thing for game balance as a whole. Otherwise, all of the other Codices would have needed to be stepped up significantly in power to match. And from what I see, if others got goodies, you'd be whining about that, too.

If they're that much of a problem for you, don't take them. I think you're probably missing out, but that's the risk of Chaos.

I must have missed the memo on CSMs becoming 2ed Orks. Where are my Pulsa Rokkits and Hop Spats?

Vaktathi
28-08-2007, 12:59
A couple things you forgot Sovereign, mainly about the possessed/dreads, is that Dreads no longer get 2x attacks in melee if it goes berserk (and fire frenzy now targets nearest model, it used to attack friendlies only if no enemies were in range or LoS), and another VERY important piece is that possessed and dreads now compete with 30pt Terminators in Elites, there really is no reason to take possessed at 26pts when you can get much more reliable 30pt terminators with the same number of attacks, a better armor save, good shooty with combi-weapons and TL bolters as well as heavy flamers and RAC's (as opposed to no shooty at all with possessed) and guaranteed power weapons with the ability to deep strike. about the only thing possessed have over 30pt Termi's is S5, which is nice for sure, but probably isnt enough to overcome the advantage of 30pt termi's.

Dreads were not really used in the last codex all that much, and will be used even less in this one unless they are 2x DCCW dreads, they simply are too slow and unreliable for the most part, and a Defiler does CC better anyway now (and has a Fleet roll now too).


Also with regards to the Daemon weapons, in the old codex you didnt test for every single wound you made, you made one leadership test if you caused any wound (but only one test regardless of the number of wounds inflicted) or you suffered a perils of the Warp attack, it wasnt an automatic wound, and it wasnt taken for every wound inflicted. the new Daemon Weapons cause an automatic wound with no armor saves allowed on a roll of one for the +D6 random attacks, and causes all attacks to be forfeited for that round of combat, and the Khornate weapon does this on +2d6 (allowing for a huge number of attacks potentially but at the same time taking a ridiculous risk for a 40pt weapon on a minimum 90pt model already).


Also, you seem to think Oblits in the current codex were somehow a replacement for Havocs, but you really could not take enough to do this unless you played IW (in which case why not supplement your Oblits with more Havocs!), every other force being restricted to one unit of three Obliterators. Tank hunting Autocannon havocs were far and away better anti-tank units than 3 Oblits. a unit of havocs did pretty much any dedicated job better than oblits, Oblits were just able to do alot. (yes, they should have been in HS all long and whatnot I understand, but the point still stands)


Newsflash, it's not just what the powergamer CSM players want - it's also what their opponents want.

thats a wee bit of an unfair generalization there methinks...and I'm sure most of us don't appreciate that.

gorgon
28-08-2007, 13:46
So? 2009 seems very reasonable, given that this is releasing at the tail end of 2007. Hopefully, GW does a "Year of Chaos" and releases all 4 books as a block.

I forgot about C:SM redux. My bet is 2010 at the earliest.

Back on topic, are you actually telling me a player who wants Legions rules should be comforted because GW *might* give them what they're asking for two to three years from now?

My point is that Gav is being disingenous by bringing up Legion books that are a crapshoot and years away at best. He should know better. People jump all over offhand comments from the designers about stuff they might do...witness "Codex: Darkside" and "40K Advanced," which players were convinced were right around the corner for years.

Designer comments on the topic ought to come with a disclaimer that while the "design space" is there for Legion books, there are no actual plans for writing them and it would likely be years before they happen, if at all. That's just being fair and honest to your customers.



Have you spoken to any DE or Ork players lately? They've waited a *lot* longer than you have or will.

For what? I'm not a CSM player. And we'll see if the Legion books *ever* happen.

Besides that, your analogy makes no sense. The situations are completely different. Ork and DE armies are completely compatible with their current codicies. It's just that the codicies are old.

Am I the only one who sees irony that GW is reducing the profile of the Legions in the rules at a time when the Legions are getting more attention than ever in the HH books? In many ways, the Legions have never been so popular. Just seems kinda weird to me.

I realize this is a difficult concept, but some players see both good and bad in the new codex. I like some design decisions but not others. It's creepy and bizarre behavior that people would expect that I'm a powergaming IW player because I question certain design decisions and take issue with a portion of a designer's comments. But then gamers are a creepy and bizarre lot for the most part.





Newsflash, it's not just what the powergamer CSM players want - it's also what their opponents want. And that means:
- clarity of rules
- clarity of options
- balanced army
- balanced units
Imagine that!

Does Kermit the Frog still do Muppet Newsflashes? I'm just wondering. I thought his interviews with the Three Little Pigs easily ranks up there with Cronkite's and Koppel's best stuff.

Anyway, the argument from those who dislike the new codex is that it's possible to have:
- clarity of rules
- clarity of options
- balanced army
- balanced units
- AND some consideration for Legions

Again, I don't even hate the new codex. It's just that the pro-Legions players have a point that it's possible to do both, so I call foul. There may be outstanding reasons to remove Legions rules, but that ain't one of them.

theluc
28-08-2007, 14:24
well that Gav tries to justify that mess wont change that is a bigger mess than they expected, GW think we are all fanboys that wont say nothing.

well im selling half of my army for other reasons than the codex, but finally the codex also helps.. maybe i just go away from 40k little by little.

some for you its all new stuff but its not the case, 2nd ED was pretty much like this one

i think that the uber grit thing is really silly
plus the game in a not so far past has got pretty expensive

40bucks for ten plastic soldiers its getting ridiculous

on the other hand plasticard and green stuff never sell this good before

was looking foward to apocalypse but it will be as expensive than battle for macragge with all the templates book dice

as i recall best buy was the 3rd ed basic box..same price more minis and the real book, not some thin flyer with quick start rules

and now a old new codex, tactically even then nothing new ... strong magics rhino wall, big squads and eat at will cult marines

plus most marine should be modelled by pre heresy standard with a few to date ones .. we only get current marines chaosified ,same goes for vehicles

no my army did not get the squat or count as treatment just im getting really fed up of those silly decisions made by the biggest company in wargaming

so that for codex ill wait a bit for a second print ..huh i meant a real codex
otherwise the other half will be sold to a power hungry youngster that still wonder if batman can win over predator

Sovereign
28-08-2007, 15:23
I forgot about C:SM redux. My bet is 2010 at the earliest.

Back on topic, are you actually telling me a player who wants Legions rules should be comforted because GW *might* give them what they're asking for two to three years from now?

Ork and DE armies are completely compatible with their current codicies. It's just that the codicies are old.

I would hope that the CSM update isn't before the DE get their book. But that's only because it would be extremely unfair to the DE players...

Legion players should be thankful that they got Cult Troops, Marks, Markable non-Cult, and usable Daemons. That is plenty more than option-wise than what existed previously. Legion players should expect that they will get their books in due time. And Gav was very fair about properly qualifying the Legion situation. He didn't set any expectations that "they're just around the corner". Legion players should look at this as the equivalent of a "get you by" Ravening Hordes / 40k3 Rulebook Lists.

So if CSM never got the updated, expanded Codex you'd be happy? Because what we have now is clearly more powerful and option-rich than the original 40k3 Codex. And of course, they'd be compatible, because nothing changed in 10 years. Lucky them!


A couple things you forgot Sovereign, mainly about the possessed/dreads, is that Dreads no longer get 2x attacks in melee if it goes berserk (and fire frenzy now targets nearest model, it used to attack friendlies only if no enemies were in range or LoS),

and another VERY important piece is that possessed and dreads now compete with 30pt Terminators in Elites,

a Defiler does CC better anyway now (and has a Fleet roll now too).

Also with regards to the Daemon weapons, in the old codex you didnt test for every single wound you made,

Also, you seem to think Oblits in the current codex were somehow a replacement for Havocs, but you really could not take enough to do this unless you played IW

Fire Frenzy targeted the closest model in the 40k3 Codex, too. The updated version was too good.

I agree 30-pt Termies are nice, but they are slow, and can't Teleport into Assault. I think it's OK that there are lots of interesting Elite picks.

A Defiler is also 50% more expensive, and won't Fleet unless the Cannon is gone.

Yes, every time you scored a wound with Daemon Weapon, you tested. That's potentially 12 tests over the course of the game (one for each Assault phase).

If you wanted to shoot, you took IW with Obits and 4 HS. The Obits replaced Havocs, because the HS spots were used for pie plates.


CSM's are individually so expensive that large squads toting a heavy weapon are cost prohibitive unless you have something like the combat squad rule.

Possessed are bad because other units like chosen are more capable at the role that possessed are explicitly designed to fill.

You have a 1/6 chance of completely losing anything the dread might do for that turn in addition to likely costing you models in the process.

It's an armor 12 vehicle toting a high priority target. It will be reliably dead by turn 2.

That's about 800 points worth of possessed. Throw in a couple of squads of raptors/Berzerkers and you've allocated probably 1200 points toward your assault element. How many points are you planning on having left for the other aspects of your list?

10 CSM are more accurate, versatile, and survivable than 10 IG with the same weapon. That is why they cost more. CSM have great inherent countercharge.

Possessed are good because they're thematic and different, and fun.

That 1/6 chance is on average, sometimes you'll even get lots of wierd things happening. Again, different and thematic.

Whether the Defiler lives depends on Target Priority, among other things. Fighting a list with a couple Size 3 MCs leading the way, it may be preferable to shoot the Daemon Princes before the Defilers.

If the army is an 2000-pt assault army, I figure I'd want another 800 pts of assault and support units.

DhaosAndy
28-08-2007, 15:55
Sovereign: "I agree 30-pt Termies are nice, but they are slow, and can't Teleport into Assault. I think it's OK that there are lots of interesting Elite picks."

Are you reading the same codex I'm reading?

The possessed are 4pts cheaper than terminators, their only advantage is a pt of S. They are lovely models, I started building them as soon as I got them, they are however, destined for the cabinet. There are no circumstances in which more terminators would not be better value for the points.

Certainly the elite choices are interesting :rolleyes: though possibly only in the Chinese sense.

So to summarise:-

Terminators - bargin

Possessed - not worth taking

Chosen - marginal

Dreadnought - not worth taking

Why do I think this is bad, well:

1/ I don't like it ;)

2/ GW will now sell me half the number of possessed they would have done had the rules been even marginal.

Shrugs

Vaktathi
28-08-2007, 16:17
I agree 30-pt Termies are nice, but they are slow, and can't Teleport into Assault. I think it's OK that there are lots of interesting Elite picks. They are no slower than the Possessed or Dreadnaught 5/6ths of the time, and are far more versatile than either, being great at shooting and CC (especially with 5pt Combi-weapons). The only other option coming close in terms of pts/cost effectiveness is Chosen, and thats only because they have infilrate and can take a 2nd Heavy/special weapon without being 10 strong. The possessed arent necessarily terrible, but they are unpredictable and funky, and the Terminators will always be rock solid, so unless you just really like the models or have a cool fluff idea, it will probably be better to go with the Terminators.




A Defiler is also 50% more expensive, and won't Fleet unless the Cannon is gone. Or if there is no good shot to take, or if you can do more damage by getting into CC quicker than taking a potshot with the battlecannon. You can also kit the defiler out to have more CC attacks than a dread.





If you wanted to shoot, you took IW with Obits and 4 HS. The Obits replaced Havocs, because the HS spots were used for pie plates. only SOME IW armies used 4 pie-plates (and not every Chaos army was Iron Warriors, not by a longshot, most chaos armies I've seen dont even have a unit of Oblits). my IW army that I've been using the last couple times out was 6 oblits, 4 Predators, 4 squads of 8 chaos marines with a heavy bolter and a plasma gun, and a Terminator lord with 4 terminators as a retinue. I considered doing 4 units of Havocs (went with predators because it was cheaper to buy) and it would have worked out fine as an army list. I have yet to actually come across an IW army with 4 pie plates myself, and have never used such an army.



Possessed are good because they're thematic and different, and fun.

yes, but unless you are looking for a fluffy daemon-oriented CSM list, terminators are still better, and probably more fluffy than the possessed for most Chaos armies.

Alpharius
28-08-2007, 17:27
Am I the only one who sees irony that GW is reducing the profile of the Legions in the rules at a time when the Legions are getting more attention than ever in the HH books? In many ways, the Legions have never been so popular. Just seems kinda weird to me.



This is a VERY good point and odd in that it is a HUGE missed opportunity for GW.

Reducing many of the legions to a color scheme at this point is a very strange decision...

Supremearchmarshal
28-08-2007, 18:39
Spot on , Grickherder!

Ahhh, how ironic you have an Iron Warrior Banner as your avatar...

4x Heavy Support-much?:angel:

My avatar is not Iron Warriors but Sons of Malice. And they're part of a LatD army. Which is no longer legal.

Occulto
28-08-2007, 19:20
This is a VERY good point and odd in that it is a HUGE missed opportunity for GW.

Reducing many of the legions to a color scheme at this point is a very strange decision...

No it's not.

Cramming the Legions into the new 'dex would make them the same as in 3.5.

A bland half page of rules that don't do nearly enough justice to how detailed the Legions really are. That would be a missed opportunity. And you can bet your bottom dollar that if they appeared in the codex, legions wouldn't be revisited until the next release cycle.

GW work by feeding people opportunities to expand their armies. Over the next few years I expect to see them push CSM, then daemons, then cults.

Let's say I start Chaos afresh. I buy a CSM list and decide Khorne's my thing. I play with it for a while, and just as I'm losing interest, they say: "here's some cool Khorne daemons to freshen things up!" So I keep playing because they add a new dimension to my list, and just as I'm losing interest, they say: "here's Codex Cults." Now I'm buying Worldeater specific sprues and special units (like DA or BT)...

rivers3162
28-08-2007, 20:13
At the minute, I have around 14000 points of Chaos for 40k comprising of NL, WE, DG, EC and LatD. I can still use my Night Lords but the rest of the armies just no longer feel the same after seeing the new codex (and 1 is completely written off - unless I use C: WH or something). I've always enjoyed building themed armies which I've tried to make fluffy and have never once used a siren prince or anything usually quoted as being cheesy or an example of powergaming. I loved the old 'dex because the various daemonic gifts gave so much scope and oppurtunity for converting but I have to admit I was gutted when I read the new codex because to me it just feels so bland.

Hopefully, specific daemon rules will come back if and when a 40k daemon codex is released which might inject a bit of flavour back into Chaos and IF the cult/legion specific lists do reappear then I'll be a happy man. It just annoys me that they brought out this dex but pretty much ignored the big 9. Sure, they can get by, but how long is it going to be before we see those? To be honest, I wish they'd done Orks or DE first and left the old 'dex for just a while longer.

But couldn't they have redone the berzerker arms and heads whils they were sculpting all the rest of the new stuff??

Slaaneshi Ice Cream
29-08-2007, 00:59
No it's not.

Let's say I start Chaos afresh. I buy a CSM list and decide Khorne's my thing. I play with it for a while, and just as I'm losing interest, they say: "here's some cool Khorne daemons to freshen things up!" So I keep playing because they add a new dimension to my list, and just as I'm losing interest, they say: "here's Codex Cults." Now I'm buying Worldeater specific sprues and special units (like DA or BT)...

You're assuming those books will actually come out, and come out in a timely fashion. Codex: Demons will almost certainly come out, but there are no current plans to do legion codices. They remain a twinkle in Gav's eye.

gorgon
29-08-2007, 12:41
And Gav was very fair about properly qualifying the Legion situation. He didn't set any expectations that "they're just around the corner". Legion players should look at this as the equivalent of a "get you by" Ravening Hordes / 40k3 Rulebook Lists.

Simply by mentioning them, he's implying there are already plans underway. And I don't think anyone expects them to happen for quite a while.

Lately it just seems that as GW's focused more and more on manufacturing, they've become more out of touch with its customers. An all-daemon army is kinda cool, but does it deserve an entire codex? A more expansive, flexible LatD-style treatment of Chaos hordes (daemons and otherwise) would be more universally compelling. But all signs point to the next book being daemons-only. It appears that the production of the miniatures is driving the creation of a new codex, and it should really be the other way around.

And although I want to see more non-MEq codicies, I can't deny that making the next book a Legions book with rules for the "big four" would be even *more* compelling to players. I don't have an issue with the idea of Legion books...I said on this forum months ago that I expected them to take this approach. What I have a problem with is GW saying "don't worry, we're saving the Legions for later," while there probably aren't any concrete plans for them. I'd respect them more if they (tactfully) said "forget about daemons and Legions...this IS your CSM codex, so you're going to have to deal with it."

grizzly ruin
30-08-2007, 03:56
Wow, you totally missed the point of what's going on here. People were taking Obliterators, because they were getting extra-Tough Devastators with W2 Sv2+/5++I in the Elite slot.
Obliterators were so totally brokenly good there was never any point in taking Havocs.

No, people took Obliterators in addition to havocs.

Keep in mind all Undivided Lists except IW were only allowed 3.

And you're the one missing the point.

Now that Obliterators and Havocs compete for the same slots, Oblits win out for long range AT. Because they are simply the best method of getting it into the list.

So if you thought Havocs were losing out to Oblits before, you've got another thing coming.




Then take Havocs, with a minimum of 5 men. That is the real difference between Heavy infantry and tactical Troops.

You mean except for every space marine army?

The difference between Havocs and CSM "Tac" squads is that you can take multiple heavy weapons. Being able to take a 5 man single heavy weapon team would in no way compromise the role that Havocs have.

Obliterators being moved to Heavy while Havocs (and loyal Devs for that matter) paying insane prices for things like Lascannons is what will undercut the role of Havocs in the game of long range AT.




You know you're not really making sense here? Those MSU Heavy teams don't come from Troops (Las/Plas CSM) or Elites (Obliterators). So as Heavies, the BA/DA Dev Combat Squads don't undercut the role of other SM Heavies like Preds etc. Similarly, Havocs don't undercut the rule of other CSM Heavies.

I'm not making sense to you, because you simply aren't understanding.

I'm not talking about BA/DA Dev Combat squads. Basic Tacs can be broken into combat squads, and you can divy the guns how you like.

Gav's point was that being able to take a small man heavy weapon unit in troops was undercutting heavy support.

However, since BA/DAs can do this, how does that not do exactly as he was saying?

I.e. undercut heavy support since BA/DA TACs can run around with 5 man lascannon teams, the other 5 guys get the plasma gun and get to keep it mobile.

So again, you're totally off the mark. The issue is that needing 10 men for a single heavy weapon is overly constraining, and Gav telling us it's due to not wanting multiple small heavy weapons units undercutting heavy support units is hypocritical and silly in light of the fact that DA & BA TAC COMBAT SQUADS CAN DO EXACTLY THAT.

I hope that was clear this time around.





I don't see any units as distinctly "bad". I think that it is likely that *all* of the units are actually good, but that many need to be taken in quantity. I also think that the units you see as "bad" are only so when viewed thru the lens of the most overpowered Codex to be released within the last decade.

How can you say this and expect to be taken seriously?

The Possesed are bad. You should not be paying that many points for a unit that can only take on a TAC squad 1/3rd of the time at 11 points over a basic trooper.

Considering that there are other, totally hardcore elite melee units running around like Genestealers, Harlequins and Death Company, I really don't think it would have been to much to ask to actually make posessed worth their points.

And it has noting to do with overpowered lenses.

Possesed needed a boost from the last codex, not a nerfing.


And you're right, spawn are not bad - they are utterly atrocious.

The new daemons are bad. Not because of their overall statline, but because that statline isn't worth it's points cost per model. Make them 2~3 points cheaper, and they'd be fine.






Because Nids don't have access to Havocs, Defilers, Dreads, Preds, etc *and* the TMC models are bigger than the DP model?

Apparently you have no concept of what the various configurations of carnifexs can do.

And model size is irrelevant, since they are all effectively size 3.





Tactics, perhaps? Or is this the wrong crowd to ask this of?

Yeah that's right, your such a masterful genius of the game that you've somehow concieved a way for Dreads to move faster than 6" and be more resilient than AV12 through TACTICS!!1!!!1!!.

Others have covered this point and most of the rest of your post already in full. If you still think it makes sense to argue those points, then it makes no sense to bother arguing with you about it.




If they're that much of a problem for you, don't take them. I think you're probably missing out, but that's the risk of Chaos.

And you're missing out, once again, on the point entirely.

This codex has seen so many units cut back, and culled out of the list that to simply flippantly say "well, hey we know you no longer have access to variant lists, or cult terminators, or daemons who actually are fearsome in combat, and ON TOP OF THAT here are a bunch of crappy units we're going to put in the dex for you to also not use."





Possessed are good because they're thematic and different, and fun.

That 1/6 chance is on average, sometimes you'll even get lots of wierd things happening. Again, different and thematic.

Thematic should not equate to overpriced and underpowered.

Genestealers are thematic.

Death Company are thematic.

And hey, look at them, they don't suck.



A bland half page of rules that don't do nearly enough justice to how detailed the Legions really are. That would be a missed opportunity. And you can bet your bottom dollar that if they appeared in the codex, legions wouldn't be revisited until the next release cycle.

Well if they cut out a few extra pictures of bolters and meltagun diagrams, and a few of the paint schemes, or some of the crappy new artwork they might have had space. :p

And a half bland page of rules in your hand, while maybe insufficient, is better than nothing, not even a promise or a plan only "the option" being left open for GW to do legions proper if it ever serves their fancy.

If we ever do see an SM redux we'll be able to look at BA and DA, distill the differences and see if those variant codices actually needed an entire book for what might actually amount to "a half bland page of rules" each.




Let's say I start Chaos afresh. I buy a CSM list and decide Khorne's my thing. I play with it for a while, and just as I'm losing interest, they say: "here's some cool Khorne daemons to freshen things up!" So I keep playing because they add a new dimension to my list, and just as I'm losing interest, they say: "here's Codex Cults." Now I'm buying Worldeater specific sprues and special units (like DA or BT)...

You mean the daemons we already had, and the units we already had that have been invalidated?

It's not freshening anything up when they give you things they had given and already taken away.


Those cult terminators were also units that were available to all CSM armies, along with aligned daemons - and nothing is on the horizon to replace them.

cailus
30-08-2007, 04:47
I think Gav has raised soem very valid points. I totally agree with him especially with regards to modeling stuff on certain units.

The game after all is WYSIWYG.

Occulto
30-08-2007, 07:17
Well if they cut out a few extra pictures of bolters and meltagun diagrams, and a few of the paint schemes, or some of the crappy new artwork they might have had space.

Spoken like a true veteran. ;)

The Chaos codex is intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The person walking into a GW store and starting their very first army for the very first time. While you or I don't need the meltagun diagrams, I witnessed enough: "WTF is what?" threads over the years to know people need to be spoonfed what each weapon looks like.

For people like yourself, GW could issue a few pages of rules typed in Arial 9 point font, with no artwork whatsoever, and you'd be happy. But only an idiot would think that kind of rule release is going to sell Chaos to a newbie walking off the street.

When I started, I didn't pick my first army because of the rules, I picked them because they looked good. It was all the glossy artwork and paint schemes which sold me the army.


And a half bland page of rules in your hand, while maybe insufficient, is better than nothing, not even a promise or a plan only "the option" being left open for GW to do legions proper if it ever serves their fancy.

No. Crap rules are always worse than nothing when it comes to GW.

Yup, reinstate those IW rules. Reorganise the org chart, take bionics, a veteran skill that's nigh on useless and give their HQ a servo arm. Brilliant. You want anything more? IW specific wargear, daemon weapons, cultists/sappers, rules for booby traps/emplacements, better seige/daemon engines?

Nope. Sorry. We couldn't fit all of that in there, and we certainly don't want to confuse anyone with different rules for the same army. So come back in about 7 years when we get round to revisiting Chaos again. Jeez being impatient was a dumb idea wasn't it?

You honestly think that all this bitching and complaining has fallen on deaf ears? :eyebrows:

Any marketing manager worth his expense account, will know that if they do release supplementary codices containing rules for Legions, they'll sell like hotcakes. GW are always going to that which earns them the most money as they're a company with a responsibility to their shareholders. If they see a demand (and only an idiot would say there wasn't) they'll respond to it.

However, do you think that if GW spent the next couple of years doing everything possible to make Chaos players like you and me happy, that Ork and DE players would be happy to sit back and watch their armies pushed back in the release schedule again?


If we ever do see an SM redux we'll be able to look at BA and DA, distill the differences and see if those variant codices actually needed an entire book for what might actually amount to "a half bland page of rules" each.

Absolutely.

On the other hand, you could look at them as being playtesting for a lot of the rules that are being thrown about for Redux. Combat squads, cheaper transports, more expensive wargear? DA and BA are the guinea pigs for the rest of the SM players. If they're not happy, they'll send their feedback in, and that'll mean they can get it right for the most popular codex released by GW.


You mean the daemons we already had, and the units we already had that have been invalidated?

It's not freshening anything up when they give you things they had given and already taken away.


Those cult terminators were also units that were available to all CSM armies, along with aligned daemons - and nothing is on the horizon to replace them.

Again. You're looking at this from the perspective of someone who's already played Chaos. :rolleyes:

If we're talking about a new player to Chaos, someone with a blank slate and no preconceptions, it makes a lot more sense to feed them in gradually, rather than overwhelming them with every option ever released in the history of Chaos.

In addition, they probably don't want players to even think about daemons until the brand spanking new plastics are released with the next year.

"Don't buy those metal daemons! Save your cash to pay for the new moulds we're making for the daemons."

As for nothing on the horizon? It's already been stated by designers that the two will work like the WHFB Chaos books. If they don't, they will lose money because CSM players will have no incentive to:

a) Buy the Daemon codex
b) Buy the plastic daemons when they're released

How many people do you know would buy a Daemon codex if they couldn't use the rules for their CSM armies?

Considering the company's recent dismal performance, even if it wasn't intended to be that way originally, I bet there's an executive telling designers right now, they'll be cleaning out their desks if the two books aren't made to work together. :eyebrows:

zombied00d
30-08-2007, 07:23
Eh, I think that if they do end up releasing a legion codex, it will be a multi-list codex, including all of the legions as oppossed to each and every Legion getting its own list.

Because seriously, how many pieces of Khorne specific wargear are you really going to need? How many times will you need to add either +A, +I, +S wargear? I don't really think the depth exsists for Legion specific lists to be stretched to full length codexes without simply regurgitating the same things ten times over.

Additionally, for those that point to the BT, DA, SW, BA getting their own codex: Yes, they do. And how much of each of those codexes is junk that's repeated from the C:SM book, or failing that from the BBB?

And finally: Given how tight shelf space already is, can they really afford 10 more slots for books and requisite new releases?

muskrat
30-08-2007, 07:40
It's a terible explination. He doubletalks himself and uses incredibly dumb logic.

"We're giving people freedom, not rules" by taking away an armory of choices and giving just the "most commonly used"

"Without having to worrying about the littlest modeling details" is dumb too. Chaos players love converting, it's half the hobby! You worrying about that spike costing five points? you're dumb too! If you don't pay the points in your list, it doesn't cost anything, and doesn't count as anything but a decorative spike.

This isn't a whine on the dex. I've read it, I like it, I'm satisfied, even as a mildly pissed off alpha legionairre. But saying we're getting freedom, when so many options have been taken away is just wrong. Also, any codex can have just the sweeping "macro planning." It's the minute details that give us the character that Chaos literally seeps through the cracks in our ancient, rusted armor.

Kraal_Lord_Of_Blood
30-08-2007, 07:47
wait....more meq codices? Dear lord! (but at least it will increase the number of 'not-some-imperial-dudes' codices...)

And lo! He who hath scrolleth over to the scientific forum shalt see that over half of the logs art of the imperial guard :rolleyes:

leonmallett
30-08-2007, 09:21
It's a terible explination. He doubletalks himself and uses incredibly dumb logic.

"We're giving people freedom, not rules" by taking away an armory of choices and giving just the "most commonly used"

Considering that the old codex had no-brainer choices I would say that the new list actually requires thinking through more, and therefore does offer choice.


"Without having to worrying about the littlest modeling details" is dumb too. Chaos players love converting, it's half the hobby! You worrying about that spike costing five points? you're dumb too! If you don't pay the points in your list, it doesn't cost anything, and doesn't count as anything but a decorative spike.

Consider spikes as the Chaos equivalent to loyalist marine purity seals - ubiquitous and something that should not have a player falling foul of paying points for something they don't want simply to ensure WYSIWYG (and I think WYSIWYG is a good thing, by the way).


This isn't a whine on the dex. I've read it, I like it, I'm satisfied, even as a mildly pissed off alpha legionairre. But saying we're getting freedom, when so many options have been taken away is just wrong. Also, any codex can have just the sweeping "macro planning." It's the minute details that give us the character that Chaos literally seeps through the cracks in our ancient, rusted armor.


The old list(s) weren't balanced. The prevalence of Iron Warrior armies was one piece of evidence, the lack of Thousand Sons another for converse reasons. There were too many combinations, there was too much variation, for it to have been fair or balanced. It was neither. The lists contained therein were not even balanced against one another, let alone other armies. That is the necessary requirement to enjoy a game, that both players through reasonable army selections have an opportunity to win. Many players express anti-tournament sentiments, however one thing they highlight is hyper-competitive tactics and army choices. The plethora of Iron Warriors armies being successful in recent years proved that.

With the current iteration of the codex you can (largely) use the models you want without worrying about every detail. The newer codices move the game to a small army level, from the uber-killy units within an army level that it had been at. Just as third edition moved us on from characters and especially psykers wreaking havoc across battlefields.

In all a simplified army is not a bad thing. I am excited at the prospect of building a Chaos marine army. I don't know what I will take yet, other than based on models because the options seem more balanced.

And my favourite things: that most units may have Marks of Chaos, and that you can take cult extremists for the four ruinous powers, or you can take regular Chaos marines not so lost along the path of worship of those same powers. There are more options in some ways, and some are subtle.

Vaktathi
30-08-2007, 09:28
Considering that the old codex had no-brainer choices I would say that the new list actually requires thinking through more, and therefore does offer choice.

well to be fair...the new codex does indeed have its fair share of no-brainer choices as well (raptors over bikes, terminators over most everything else in Elites, Lash of Submission, etc...)

leonmallett
30-08-2007, 09:38
well to be fair...the new codex does indeed have its fair share of no-brainer choices as well (raptors over bikes, terminators over most everything else in Elites, Lash of Submission, etc...)

Okay I give you Raptors over bikes, but terminators only if you want them. The comparison for terminators isn't elites only. Can those points be utilised elsewhere, effectively? The current Khornate army I am considering may not use the Terminators I have sitting near to me (lovely models that they are). The Lash necessitates a Sorcerer - it is not as simple as just comparing the various psyker powers. Would you prefer a Lord or a Deamon Prince? There are options, and not all are obvious.

grizzly ruin
30-08-2007, 13:25
The Chaos codex is intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

The validity of this statement nearly made me weep.



The person walking into a GW store and starting their very first army for the very first time. While you or I don't need the meltagun diagrams, I witnessed enough: "WTF is what?" threads over the years to know people need to be spoonfed what each weapon looks like.

They should be spoonfeeding it to them in the BGB. But yes I understand your point.




For people like yourself, GW could issue a few pages of rules typed in Arial 9 point font, with no artwork whatsoever, and you'd be happy. But only an idiot would think that kind of rule release is going to sell Chaos to a newbie walking off the street.

When I started, I didn't pick my first army because of the rules, I picked them because they looked good. It was all the glossy artwork and paint schemes which sold me the army.

Actually I really do go for the artwork myself in a codex, but this new one is a complete let down.

The previous codex has simply some of the most fantastic artwork, I've used it from wallpaper on my PC to the background on my mobile (my previous mobile actually had a way to rotate through 4 pictures every 20 mins to 1 hour:D).

The artwork in this codex is pretty bland overall, some of it is decent, some is recycled and some of it is just bad. I can't believe they actually used an entire page for the picture on pg. 50.




You honestly think that all this bitching and complaining has fallen on deaf ears? :eyebrows:

They've proved quite deaf before. We'll see what happens.




If we're talking about a new player to Chaos, someone with a blank slate and no preconceptions, it makes a lot more sense to feed them in gradually, rather than overwhelming them with every option ever released in the history of Chaos.

Bah, feed them the posterboys. If they can't handle being overwhelmed they shouldn't be playing chaos. ;)

But honestly, I still think they took it too far. My biggest gripe is that of the units that did remain in the codex, many of them really do suffer from good unit/bad unit syndrome.

If they hadn't gone overboard with the random roll to see what hat you wear today nonsense, if possesed had ended up a true hardcore melee unit like Stealers, DC or Harlies, if Daemons were at least a few points cheaper to actually make them the unit they are trying to be, if Dreads had been left alone since they were already balanced, and if daemonweapons hadn't been made so overly unstable - I really could have lived with the rest of the codex.

Spawn. :cries:

Instead, I've lost access to units that have no equals in the new codex - and I'll be forced not to use even more units simply because they are distinctly poor choices and most certainly not worth their points.

And even then there are the nit picky things, like why the hell do Chaos Sorcerers STILL have to pay points premiums for Powers with no Psychic defense items, whereas Librarians get their powers practically for free, along with their unlimited use, umilited range Psychic Hoods?




As for nothing on the horizon? It's already been stated by designers that the two will work like the WHFB Chaos books.

Do you have a quote for that? I've seen arguments for both sides saying the same thing basically.

"The designers have stated that the two will/won't work like the WHFB books."

And yet I've to see confirmation for either.

And what if it isn't compatible? Would you change your stance then?

The equivalent would be if they removed Harlequins, Falcons and Firedragons and made a new codex expanding on them and called it Codex: VP denial then you're dead, or if we see Codex: Nidzilla, with base Tyranid Armies getting a "Generic Monstrous Creatures" to substitute.

de Selby
30-08-2007, 14:31
It's already been stated by designers that the two will work like the WHFB Chaos books. If they don't, they will lose money because CSM players will have no incentive to:

a) Buy the Daemon codex
b) Buy the plastic daemons when they're released

How many people do you know would buy a Daemon codex if they couldn't use the rules for their CSM armies?

Considering the company's recent dismal performance, even if it wasn't intended to be that way originally, I bet there's an executive telling designers right now, they'll be cleaning out their desks if the two books aren't made to work together. :eyebrows:

Actually the designer's quotes that I've read have said everything BUT that the daemon codex and CSM codex will work like the WHFB books. Their statements are suggestive but not definitive, and if you have something solid I'd be glad to see it. Often when they pussyfoot around like this it means they're not giving us what we want.

Of course, I'd still hesitate before shelling out £24 on new codices to get my army back to having the reasonably characterful and appropriate rules it had before the revision. I'm more likely to spend that money elsewhere.

leonmallett
30-08-2007, 14:34
Actually the designer's quotes that I've read have said everything BUT that the daemon codex and CSM codex will work like the WHFB books. Their statements are suggestive but not definitive, and if you have something solid I'd be glad to see it. Often when they pussyfoot around like this it means they're not giving us what we want.

Of course, I'd still hesitate before shelling out £24 on new codices to get my army back to having the reasonably characterful and appropriate rules it had before the revision. I'm more likely to spend that money elsewhere.

By "appropriate rules" do you mean the variant lists that were a wreck in the last Codex Chaos Space Marines? Because they were anything but appropriate...

gorgon
30-08-2007, 14:34
well to be fair...the new codex does indeed have its fair share of no-brainer choices as well (raptors over bikes, terminators over most everything else in Elites, Lash of Submission, etc...)

Yes, and we also have some perspective on the current codex because it's been years since its release. Four years from now, we might be saying the same things about no-brainer choices and cookie-cutter armies from the new codex.

I'm not saying that's necessarily going to be the case, just pointing out that both sides are making assumptions here.

de Selby
30-08-2007, 14:47
By "appropriate rules" do you mean the variant lists that were a wreck in the last Codex Chaos Space Marines? Because they were anything but appropriate...

No, I meant daemon rules. But IMO...

The variant lists in C:CSM were more appropriate than, for example, the traits system used for chapters of legend in C:SM. They actually reflected the character of the different legions. They weren't balanced, but the new monolist isn't internally balanced either. It remains to be seen how it stacks up against the other extant codices once tournament players have worked out an optimal list. Shouldn't take too long.

leonmallett
30-08-2007, 14:58
No, I meant daemon rules. But IMO...

The variant lists in C:CSM were more appropriate than, for example, the traits system used for chapters of legend in C:SM. They actually reflected the character of the different legions. They weren't balanced, but the new monolist isn't internally balanced either. It remains to be seen how it stacks up against the other extant codices once tournament players have worked out an optimal list. Shouldn't take too long.

Sorry to have misinterpreted you. I agree the traits need to be scrapped or massively reworked.

foehammer888
30-08-2007, 15:58
Now that Obliterators and Havocs compete for the same slots, Oblits win out for long range AT. Because they are simply the best method of getting it into the list.

So if you thought Havocs were losing out to Oblits before, you've got another thing coming. Except Havocs are much more resilient than Obliterators, and are better at certain roles. If you hit an obliterator unit with 3 lascannons, you get the invul saves, but lose 1 obliterator, and all his firepower, for every save you don't pass. In a 10-strong havoc squad, you simply lose 1 ablative marine (who can even have a invul save if you wish thanks to the Icon of Tzeentch). With the new restricted weapon options on obliterators, Havocs with heavy bolters or missile launchers are better for their anti-infantry capabilitiles than obliterators).


I.e. undercut heavy support since BA/DA TACs can run around with 5 man lascannon teams, the other 5 guys get the plasma gun and get to keep it mobile.

So again, you're totally off the mark. The issue is that needing 10 men for a single heavy weapon is overly constraining, and Gav telling us it's due to not wanting multiple small heavy weapons units undercutting heavy support units is hypocritical and silly in light of the fact that DA & BA TAC COMBAT SQUADS CAN DO EXACTLY THAT. And you're not understanding it. In the DA/BA list you NEED 10 men to get a lascannon, just like chaos. The advantage is they can split part of the units off to stay mobile if they wish. However, it doesn't change the fact that both armies have the same overall "tactical" marine to lascannon ratio. When comparing previous chaos to DA/BA, DA/BA could get 1 lascannon per 10 tactical marines, but chaos could get 2 per 10. Thus, more lascannons in the troops section of the chaos list, undermining heavy support units.

Its not the size of the squad thats the issue, its the number of models you need to take to get that lascannon. Yes loyalists get the advantage of combat squads, but chaos gets flexible squad sizes, multiple special weapons, icons, and BP, CCW, and bolter on the basic marine. I think chaos still ends up on top.

Foehammer

rintinglen
30-08-2007, 16:20
I don't see how the plethora of options made something with a lot of character. There were only a few different combinations of of gifts and gear that were ever taken.
I get so sick of hearing this baloney. I have seen every deamonic gift except venom used in a game, I have seen every Deamon Weapon except the ethereal lance used in a game, I have seen speed sirens, winged deamon princes of Khorne, terminator lords, and I have seen some pretty nifty models done to represent these. It is disingenous to say that the options were mostly irrelevant and therefore can be ignored. What you are really saying is that you don't play many different chaos opponents, or maybe just don't play often at all....
I am underwhelmed with the new codex and I really don't care for the return to "Herohammer" that seems to be underway. I don't like generic special characters--I much prefer to make up my own when the game system allows it and the new system doesn't.

grizzly ruin
30-08-2007, 16:40
Except Havocs are much more resilient than Obliterators, and are better at certain roles. If you hit an obliterator unit with 3 lascannons, you get the invul saves, but lose 1 obliterator, and all his firepower, for every save you don't pass. In a 10-strong havoc squad, you simply lose 1 ablative marine (who can even have a invul save if you wish thanks to the Icon of Tzeentch). With the new restricted weapon options on obliterators, Havocs with heavy bolters or missile launchers are better for their anti-infantry capabilitiles than obliterators).

10 Havocs, 3 Lascannons, IoT = 295 points

I can get 4 Obliterators for that.

You need to go point for point if you want to do a real comparison.

6 Havocs, IoT, 3 Lascannons = 235

3 Obliterators = 225

Same wounds, Oblits have a better save vs. small arms and are equipped with a massive assortment of other weapons, including 6 powerfist attacks or 3 twin linked flamers to deal with hordes that get too close.

And they can deepstrike to icons, move and fire, rapid fire twin linked plasma guns yadda yadda.

So the point still stands, if you want lascannons in your force (and you do) you want Obliterators.

I don't think Havocs are terrible.

I have no overall gripes with the unit in fact they make excellent Melta and Plasmagun platforms since they have no squad size restriction on how many they can take and they pay the same point for those guns as basic CSMs do.

I do think that Havocs and Devs are paying too much for their heavies, in particular lascannons.

My point was originally to counter Sovereign who was trying to explain how Obliterators in the Elite spot were somehow undercutting Havocs - which completely misses the point that they will be even more undercut now.





And you're not understanding it. In the DA/BA list you NEED 10 men to get a lascannon, just like chaos. The advantage is they can split part of the units off to stay mobile if they wish. However, it doesn't change the fact that both armies have the same overall "tactical" marine to lascannon ratio. When comparing previous chaos to DA/BA, DA/BA could get 1 lascannon per 10 tactical marines, but chaos could get 2 per 10. Thus, more lascannons in the troops section of the chaos list, undermining heavy support units.


Its not the size of the squad thats the issue, its the number of models you need to take to get that lascannon. Yes loyalists get the advantage of combat squads, but chaos gets flexible squad sizes, multiple special weapons, icons, and BP, CCW, and bolter on the basic marine. I think chaos still ends up on top.



Then something else should have been done to mitigate it instead of making it a simply ridiculous proposition.

10 Chaos Marines should not have to stand around so one guy can fire a lascannon, there's a reason people have been figuring out every method possible to avoid playing like that - it's really stupid.


Instead we get Dreads you don't want to arm with lascannons.

CSMs you don't want to arm with lascannons.

And Oblits being the only effective way to get lascannons into the list.

Unless you think spending 300 points on a Havoc squad actually makes sense.

Pharon
30-08-2007, 17:16
@grizzly
That's pretty much spot on. The one thing you neglected was that oblits are fearless while Havocs are not. Once the havoc squad is below 50% and fails a morale test they're running off the board while the oblits will keep on going.

As far as melta/plasma platforms go...chosen are actually superior to Havocs in that regard since they can infiltrate.

The only role I personally can see Havocs filling is infantry fire support by taking ACs and HBs. For that role however I think a AC/HB pred would do the same thing a lot more effectively.

Havocs aren't bad units...there just seems to be a superior choice for every role a havoc squad would fill.

Master Jeridian
30-08-2007, 17:48
Then something else should have been done to mitigate it instead of making it a simply ridiculous proposition.

10 Chaos Marines should not have to stand around so one guy can fire a lascannon, there's a reason people have been figuring out every method possible to avoid playing like that - it's really stupid.

Oh noes!!!111!
Now you have to design an army to work together, having units for anti-tank (usually Heavy Support) whilst the Troops fulfill anti-infantry, objective claiming, etc.

Rather than the 6xman las/plas, the most boring, omni-purpose, stick in cover and shoot, no-brainer, mini-Dev squad.

You do know there are other heavy weapons in a CSM squad...

You do know there are other units that can carry lascannons:

Oblits
Predators

These are where I would rely on lascannon support, they have the vital advantage of move and shoot.

grizzly ruin
30-08-2007, 18:00
Oh noes!!!111!
Now you have to design an army to work together, having units for anti-tank (usually Heavy Support) whilst the Troops fulfill anti-infantry, objective claiming, etc.

Rather than the 6xman las/plas, the most boring, omni-purpose, stick in cover and shoot, no-brainer, mini-Dev squad.

You do know there are other heavy weapons in a CSM squad...

You do know there are other units that can carry lascannons:

Oblits
Predators

These are where I would rely on lascannon support, they have the vital advantage of move and shoot.

Wow, way to not only be completely obnoxious but manage to miss all of the relevant points leading up to the part of the post you quoted.

Go eat a cookie.

Pharon
30-08-2007, 18:06
Oh noes!!!111!
Now you have to design an army to work together, having units for anti-tank (usually Heavy Support) whilst the Troops fulfill anti-infantry, objective claiming, etc.

Rather than the 6xman las/plas, the most boring, omni-purpose, stick in cover and shoot, no-brainer, mini-Dev squad.

You do know there are other heavy weapons in a CSM squad...

You do know there are other units that can carry lascannons:

Oblits
Predators

These are where I would rely on lascannon support, they have the vital advantage of move and shoot.

Did you actually read anything that he wrote?

Ddraiglais
30-08-2007, 18:15
I actually found some of Gav's thoughts on the matter disturbing. They knew the non inclusion of legion rules in any form would be wildly unpopular yet they did it anyways without a concrete plan such as IA or CA articles in WD to supplement the codex. Says a lot about the value of the non newbie player to the hobby that GW holds us in. And that right there is disturbing.

Also to all those who love the new dex, be prepared to cry, weep now for the ungodly lists that I've seen coming are not going to be fun and you will find no variance in Chaos armies in tournaments. Two winged princes each with the lash, three vindicators, a squad of plauge marines a squad or two of berserkers and a few things thrown in to call it fluffy. sick.

At one time I considered opening up a store. The distribution guy flat out told me that to be successful you had to court new players. While I can see where he was coming from, I disagree with the sentiment that older players aren't worth attention. I really don't think GW cares about vet players. There's not enough money coming from vets.

That's one thing I keep saying. No matter what GW does to the rules, there will be some way to exploit them. That goes for EVERY army out there. How does the saying go? The more things change, the more they stay the same. We'll be hearing about how "cheesy" the new dex is in a few months.



What is truly disturbing is this idea of simplicity for chaos. To me chaos is about variability, randomness and general wackiness. Such things cannot be expressed in non-complicated terms. Perhaps if GW admitted this in the design process they could have created something that catered to a broader slice of players. Even Gav admits what they did was going to offend a bunch of people they encouraged to build cult or legion armies, rules for which existed for at least 2 years before 3.5 was released. Instead they give a cold reasurance that maybe, sometime, if we buy lots of stuff, players might get a cult codex to do 'true' justice. True justice would've been addressing issues rather than wantonly discarding them into the too hard basket.

All I have to say is Amen!!! You hit the nail on the head.



All I have to say, after having gotten the Codex last night..

Anyone who has it and thinks it sucks, is tactically backwards. This new dex, as the army as a whole is far superior then the old one. No you may not be able to trick out random spikes to do this or that.. but the overall rules for units and what they come standard with is incredible. I, for one, am totally satisfied.

Nice way to insult anyone who has a different opinion. Could I make an effective army from the new dex? Sure I could. Are some of my favorite models no longer available or unusable because of the rules? You better believe it. The game isn't always about what kind of list you can make for a tournament. Believe it or not, some of us like the flavor of our armies and play the game for fun. The new codex takes the flavor out of the legions. That's why I say the new codex sucks. It has nothing to do with making an effective army. It has everything to do with the fact that my army (and most Chaos armies now) are uninteresting.




I actually think that's a great approach. There's been just two many 6 man squads with tons of heavy/special weapons. Combined with veteran skills, things just got a bit sick. There's a distinct tactical advantage to multiple small units when you have issues like leadership and numbers under control. A mark of chaos undivided and using all 6 troop slots certainly did that.

I also like the focus on choosing units rather than single models. The combat squad rules in the DA/BA codexes are another step in the right direction. It's now not a matter of tweaking numbers for maximum effectiveness but taking units.

I'm not usually one to be kind to GW on these forums, but I think that their design decisions over the last batch of codexes has been spot on. For the most part, they removed arbitrary 0-1 restrictions, made named characters more viable by sticking them right into HQ choices (I never understood why they devalued their own product by making something "opponent's permission only" which implies it's not to be used for regular games). I really like the latest tyranid codex.

Now if they would just fix the turn structure to help create some actual fire and maneuver tactics, things would be great. Unit by unit activation, reaction fire, each player alternating entire phases-- anything but the move-shoot-assault with the entire army while the other person waits and can do nothing but remove models off the table in turn 1 because they lost a single die roll.

Why would any Chaos army have full 10 man squads? I'm not talking about how "unfair" some people think it is. I'm talking about the flavor of Chaos. It makes no sense to me that they would be restricted to a certain number per squad, especially since Loylists aren't.

Again, the flavor of Chaos would go the other way. The concept behind Chaos is individual champions leading squads. More powerful champions lead armies. The very nature of Chaos is about the individual.

If dumbing down the rules and ruining variety is a step forward, then GW did a great job.

That is a good idea. I wouldn't mind seeing something like that.



I've always thought that to evaluate rules, you need to be able to see how well they meet the design goals for the rules. Do they meet the design goals? Are they fun for all participants? Those are questions to determine the merit of the rules. The wrong approach entirely would be "do the rules meet the design goals from a previous codex?".

Now people having their models invalidated are certainly right to be pissed off. Or atleast as long as it's a GW kit that got invalidated. Conversions are another matter as GW can't support every possible combination of bitz we could come up with no matter how hard they tried. Is there anything in the new codex that invalidates a unit as GW sells it or has sold it during the life of the last codex?

LatD players have the right to be a bit annoyed. They were at the forefront of the Eye of Terror campaign, supporting GW's big global event by making these cool traitor/mutant armies. There is no reason whatsoever that GW shouldn't produce a free PDF that tells how the new codex works with the Lost and the Damned.

Do they meet the design goals? I guess. Are they fun for everyone? There's enough outrage to say absolutely not.

Let's see what's invalidated...daemons, oblits, possessed, dreads, cultists, basilisks.....

I am 100% with you on this. LatD players got screwed royally.



Yes, just ask the Squats what happens if you don't have an advocate in the studio.


Supposedly they did have advocates in the studio. That's why they were dropped. At least that's the story I heard.



Eh, I think that if they do end up releasing a legion codex, it will be a multi-list codex, including all of the legions as oppossed to each and every Legion getting its own list.


IMO Chaos needs four more codices. They need the daemon codex. That should be followed by a cults codex (covering all 4 cults), an undivided codex (covering the other 5 legions), and and LatD codex with real mutants instead of the generic ones.


It is interesting that they MAY do legions. It makes me a little happier. However, GW has failed to produce things that were "definately" in the pipeline. They have a tendency to push things back. I'd be surprised if we see legions by the end of the decade. By then it will be almost time for a new edition.

I guess my only option is to shelf my CSM minis and play Legio Mortis in Apocalypse until they excercise their "option" of producing legion specific rules or the next codex comes out to fix this one. Probably my best bet is when the backlash from the SM dex forces GW to reconsider what they're doing, and they redo all the codices they've wrecked. :)

Warp Zero
30-08-2007, 18:29
Well if they cut out a few extra pictures of bolters and meltagun diagrams, and a few of the paint schemes, or some of the crappy new artwork they might have had space.

I've taken a sneak peek at the new Chaos Codex, and while I can't comment accurately on things relating on game mechanics, I can say that the weapon/gear diagram section is indeed filled with horrible drawings. What happened here? Look at page 23 "Eldar Weaponry" in the Eldar Codex, and then look at the new diagrams in the new Chaos Codex....:confused:

Yikes!

My theory? Those were loose design/concept artwork. Someone ran out of time, or just didn't want to spend money to hire a freelancer to draw the new diagrams and so just threw in the concept art. Probably the guy that drew them was like, "whoa wait! Those weren't meant for viewing...those were like done fast as notes...not for final publishing....."

Anyways, just surprised to see that. Kind of took me out of it. So used to seeing polished artwork out of GW. :(

As far as game mechanics, I can't participate in the discussion until I get my hands on the Codex. So basically a month from now.

Fulgrim's-Chosen
30-08-2007, 19:19
To Master Jeridian - I think what Grizzly Ruin was pointing out was that "having units for anti-tank" can be accomplished just fine in the new Codex ...but the "best" / optimal unit for this is Obliterators, NOT Havocs.

His reason for saying that is that Gav's explanation (in part) was designed to explain the Design-Team's new focus on avoiding Crossover or Competition in the new list, when possible.

IE - they didn't want small Chaos squads being given Lascannons as they felt it made Havocs (the "supposed-to-be" heavy weapon squads for CSM) fairly irrelevant or simply less-taken / less-used in many armies.


Grizz's point is that, DESPITE the argument put forward by Gav / the rationale used / etc. - - - the Chaos players best approach in the New Codex is STILL to avoid Havocs (except for Special Weapon concentration, which as another poster mentioned is STILL best done with Chosen thanks to Infiltrate ability which Havocs cannot have any longer) .... and instead to go with Obliterators, for all the advantages they have over basic Havoc squads, which have already been noted.

So if Gav n' Co. were aiming to make Havocs MORE regularly taken as the Chaos Heavy Weapon Wielders - Grizz and others are pointing out that given the superiority (overall) of Obliterators, you are STILL going to see Havocs "less used" than Oblits as the CSM Heavy Weapon Wielders (most of the time, at least).

angrynippleticks
30-08-2007, 19:35
needs more cowbell

Brother Siccarius
30-08-2007, 20:36
GavT:

The good news is that GW is well aware of the grumbling and disappointment over the loss of Traitor Legion rules, and just might do something about it.

Eventually.

They were planning on doing something about it when they started redoing the chaos codex. The first rumors I remember hearing on here about the new chaos codex were: New Chaos Codex (focus on renegades), new LaTD codex, New Codex: Demons, and a new codex for each legion. That was months ago, and people are acting as if it's a whole new thing that they weren't talking about from the beginning.

I could go back and find some of the same people that currently complain about the legions getting their own codexies and find them complaining years ago about the legions not being covered enough by the 3rd ed codex.

x-esiv-4c
30-08-2007, 20:40
On the topic of crappy schematics, did anyone else notice the schematics of the man-portable plasma cannons despite not being allowed to field such a thing?
(In the new chaos 'dex)

Good job.

foehammer888
30-08-2007, 21:11
10 Havocs, 3 Lascannons, IoT = 295 points

I can get 4 Obliterators for that.

You need to go point for point if you want to do a real comparison. All depends on what you care about. Drop 2 marines and add a lascannon, and the havoc squad costs around the same amount, for which you could still get around 4 obliterators. Now the obliterators are cheapers than the havocs, but the havocs have more firepower (4 lascannons plus the rest of the squads weapons), and most importantly, take 1HS slot, while the obliterators take 2. I've found when it comes to many armies and HS units, how expensive a unit is takes a back-seat to how many HS slots it takes.

What's better, 1 havoc squad with 4 lascannons taking 1HS slot, or 4 obliterators with 4 lascannons taking 2 HS slots?


I do think that Havocs and Devs are paying too much for their heavies, in particular lascannons. But if you make them too cheap, then Obliterators become the redundant unit. As it stands, obliterators are the better anti-tank unit, while havocs are better long-range anti-infantry. Technically, if you're talking anti-tank an deep-striking to icons, the obliterators are much more worthwhile for the multi-melta than the lascannon.


My point was originally to counter Sovereign who was trying to explain how Obliterators in the Elite spot were somehow undercutting Havocs - which completely misses the point that they will be even more undercut now. Actually I believe the problem was more of Oblits undercutting terminators when they were elites.




10 Chaos Marines should not have to stand around so one guy can fire a lascannon, there's a reason people have been figuring out every method possible to avoid playing like that - it's really stupid. Then purhaps firing a lascannon should not be the primary purpose of tactical/chaos marine squads. There are plenty of other units in the CSM armory that can wield those types of weapons: Havocs, obliterators, predators, land raiders, chosen. Give the CSM squads 2 special weapons instead. Give them a heavy bolter to compliment the bolters they usually fire.

Why is there such a problem with CSM squads taking lascannons? No, its not the best option in the world, but why does it have to be? If you make lascannons really worth while in CSM squads, why even have havocs? Obliterators? Predators?

Similar example: the RAC in terminator squads. From their profile and rules, chaos terminators are an assault unit. They have high attacks, can be given more attacks, have power weapons, have lots of accurate short-ranged shooting, and lots of options for icons making them better assault units. Why the RAC then? Its expensive, and its long range is counter to the units normal assault role? Its an option for flexibility. Similarly some would argue that power fists in devastator squads should be cheaper, as they aren't an assault unit. Some options are included to allow players flexibility, but they shouldn't always be good options.



Instead we get Dreads you don't want to arm with lascannons.

CSMs you don't want to arm with lascannons.

And Oblits being the only effective way to get lascannons into the list.

Unless you think spending 300 points on a Havoc squad actually makes sense What is with this massive craving for lascannons? With 2 special weapons in CSM squads, up to 4-5 in havocs or chosen, raptors with special weapons, bikes with special weapons. There are lots of other ways to kill tanks.

One the dread issue. Suppose you give the dread lascannons, and he fire-frenzies. If the nearest unit is a CSM unit, then you risk losing a single 15 point model to the frenzy. Statistically this happens once a game. I also know many opponents who control fire frenzy by simply making careful use of fire arcs. As a dread, he only has a 180 arc of fire. Thus, its possible to orient him such that even in the rare event of a fire frenzy, there is no friendly model in LOS.

Now, I have always defended this dex, but even I realize after reading it there are some issues that could have been easily fixed.

1) Possessed: I had two solutions
- either just give them 2ccw at the same price
- give them 2 random tables. One for a radom weapon rule, one for a random movement rule.

2) Lesser Daemons: compared to the rest of the list (which already has lots of redundant units, part of the problem), I would have gone with significantly cheaper (says 7-8 points) and the following WS4 S3 T3 A2. Basically a cannon-fodder assault unit.

3) Spawn: Feel No Pain.

The following is the problem with the above units. Between Spawn, Chosen, terminators, possessed, lesser daemons, Khorne Beserkers, Raptors, and bikes there are just too many assault units to possibly make them all viable and non-redundant.

Foehammer

Vineas
30-08-2007, 21:24
I for one am glad that Heavy weapons are becoming rarer and more expensive. This cuts back on the amount fielded and makes transports and tanks look to be more viable. No fear of using vehicles anymore because some a'hole might decide to take 15 lascannons in his/her army, now that number is probably cut in 1/2 (or more with the way people are complaining of cost mostly) which is fine by me.

I love transport vehicles and i'm so glad it's going to be a lot more viable to take them now, hell even LR's are looking to be really good options now.


What is with this massive craving for lascannons? With 2 special weapons in CSM squads, up to 4-5 in havocs or chosen, raptors with special weapons, bikes with special weapons. There are lots of other ways to kill tanks.

People are just upset they can't min/max anymore. I've heard more complaints from Marine players about having to take 10 man squads for heavies then I heard Eldar players complaining that gaurdians are 10-20 so NEED 10 men to take a grav......booh, goddamn, who.

Ozendorph
30-08-2007, 22:17
People are just upset they can't min/max anymore. I've heard more complaints from Marine players about having to take 10 man squads for heavies then I heard Eldar players complaining that gaurdians are 10-20 so NEED 10 men to take a grav......booh, goddamn, who.

I don't think that's exactly true. I don't think it's a whine. It's more a matter of "Why would 9 guys stand around and cheer for one dude with a lascannon?" As Grizzly stated earlier in the thread, it's not an effective use of resources, and people (including some designers) have been looking for ways to get around it since RT.

I personally would be happy if they nixed heavy weapons in Tac/CSM squads altogether and allowed a couple special weapons instead. They'd probably end up being played as intended (dynamic, flexible), leaving the Heavy Support troops to sit back and..well..provide heavy support. :)

Vineas
30-08-2007, 22:44
Logical thinking Oz although I still think Tac squads should be able to have at least ONE heavy but I don't really think I'd miss them if they took that ability out. The only problem being is that we'd get people complain they can't take them at all.

Maybe limit tac squads to anti-infantry weapons and leave Las and multi-meltas for Havocs but then that would make Havocs almost never taken as Oblits (yeah even I hate to say it) are better than Havocs for anti-tank.

As I said, it's my belief Heavies are being reduced/priced higher to discourage every Joe Marine from having one to a) encourage the use of more anti-infantry weapons and b) to encourage more use of vehicles. The vehicle rules IMO aren't bad, they just look bad because of the ungodly number of anti-tank weapons that people field. Vehicle rules don't suck, it's the availability of anti-tank weapons that is the real issue.

foehammer888
30-08-2007, 23:06
I don't think that's exactly true. I don't think it's a whine. It's more a matter of "Why would 9 guys stand around and cheer for one dude with a lascannon?" As Grizzly stated earlier in the thread, it's not an effective use of resources, and people (including some designers) have been looking for ways to get around it since RT. Because that's not the purpose of a tactical squad. A tactical squad is meant to be just that...tactical. Able to adapt to almost any situation. That's why the "classical" tactical squad was built around a missile launcher and flamer. Bolters are for normal shooting, the flamer is for killing hordes or clearing fortifications of defenders, and the missile launcher is for a combination of light anti-tank and long-range anti-personnel.

This is extremely similar to how modern military units are organized. Most have standard assault rifles. One guy often carries a machine gun for supressing fire, and 1-2 carry some form of man-portable anti-tank rocket.

However, the 40k rules bugger the situation. If one guy must remain stationary to fire, the whole squad must remain stationary. It would be better if the model had to remain stationary, but the unit has to maintain coherency. Then you could move the ML guy to the front one turn, and then fire the heavy in the next turn while his squad advances past him. Additionally, 40k architecture and rules reward single-minded units rather than flexible units. The purpose of a lascannon/missile launcher in a tactical squad is for 2 reasons:

1) you are holding and defending an objective, and thus the weapon adds firepower without sacrificing much, as you likely wouldn't move anyway.
2) if your normal anti-tank unit gets blown to hell on turn 1, now what do you do about the enemy tanks?

I think the correct execution of this would have been to allow heavy weapons in tactical / CSM squads only in 10-man squads, but make them really cheap, and have the guy keep his bolter. That way they are reasonable as "just in case" weapons, but you are still motivated to make use of the rest of the units firepower (bolters).

Foehammer

Pharon
30-08-2007, 23:19
All depends on what you care about. Drop 2 marines and add a lascannon, and the havoc squad costs around the same amount, for which you could still get around 4 obliterators. Now the obliterators are cheapers than the havocs, but the havocs have more firepower (4 lascannons plus the rest of the squads weapons), and most importantly, take 1HS slot, while the obliterators take 2. I've found when it comes to many armies and HS units, how expensive a unit is takes a back-seat to how many HS slots it takes.

What's better, 1 havoc squad with 4 lascannons taking 1HS slot, or 4 obliterators with 4 lascannons taking 2 HS slots?

2 squads of 2 oblits are better in almost every instance than 1 Havoc squad. In addition to being able to split their fire, move and shoot and being more durable than the havoc squad they also have to suffer more wounds before they lose all scoring status and the fact that they are fearless means you don't have to worry about them being pinned or falling back.

Havocs aren't bad units...they just don't really excel at anything.


One the dread issue. Suppose you give the dread lascannons, and he fire-frenzies. If the nearest unit is a CSM unit, then you risk losing a single 15 point model to the frenzy. Statistically this happens once a game. I also know many opponents who control fire frenzy by simply making careful use of fire arcs. As a dread, he only has a 180 arc of fire. Thus, its possible to orient him such that even in the rare event of a fire frenzy, there is no friendly model in LOS.

All vehicles get to pivot to fire if they haven't moved. You can't use the firing arc on a dread to avoid frenzy.

Ozendorph
30-08-2007, 23:35
I think you hit it, right there. Let the guy keep his bolter so he's not a total waste of skin while the unit is slogging upfield, and break out the missile launcher or heavy bolter once they've reached their objective.

Actually, that brings up a good point. I don't have my DA book in front of me, but I do have the BA PDF. According to their list, only the bolter is replaced with a special or heavy weapon, so the marine retains his bolt pistol. I'm sure this is old news to some, but I'm freaking stoked!

Master Jeridian
30-08-2007, 23:44
The whole las/plas versus Havoc's argument.

It's not how I read Gav's explanation. As far as I could tell it was a 'las/plas versus Heavy Support' problem. The 6xman las/plas was a mini-Dev squad in your Troops choice that was usurping the role of Heavy Support in general, not just Havocs.

As for Havocs, much like Devastators I stopped fielding static units ages ago. 4th is about mobility and firepower, if you only have one you suffer. The most popular armies around here are Taudar (merged since from the outside they play very similar) and so they will just stay out of LOS of static Havoc squads until ready to take them out in one fell swoop.


Actually, that brings up a good point. I don't have my DA book in front of me, but I do have the BA PDF. According to their list, only the bolter is replaced with a special or heavy weapon, so the marine retains his bolt pistol. I'm sure this is old news to some, but I'm freaking stoked!

Aye, it's testament to my adherence to mobility that my Tactical Squad heavy weapon trooper has fired his bolt pistol more times than his missile launcher.

Vineas
31-08-2007, 00:39
I still don't think Oblits trump Havocs. I actually like Oblits now for the purpose of mobile anti-tank that takes more than a single lucky lascannon to cripple but for anti-infantry, while the pred destructor is cheaper, a 4 AC toting squad of Havocs puts out a very impressive amount of shots while still being able to handle AV13 or less in an emergency situation.

I actually like all the heavies available (sans defiler, im not real impressed) and so I'm having difficulty deciding what 3 I want and that to me is a good thing :D

dcikgyurt
31-08-2007, 00:50
I think the correct execution of this would have been to allow heavy weapons in tactical / CSM squads only in 10-man squads, but make them really cheap, and have the guy keep his bolter. That way they are reasonable as "just in case" weapons, but you are still motivated to make use of the rest of the units fire-power (bolters).

Foehammer

Good Idea, but then you would get other players complaining that they didn't have smart missile launchers on fire warriors, of that their 'gaunts couldn't have guns and HtH rending.

It's swings and roundabout really. Unless you have an army for every codex, you can't always see the other perspective. Even then, you will still be coloured by a prejudice for your favourite army.

Leave the Development Team to do their job and concentrate on playing! :evilgrin:

Sovereign
31-08-2007, 01:27
2 squads of 2 oblits are better in almost every instance than 1 Havoc squad.

Havocs aren't bad units...they just don't really excel at anything.

All vehicles get to pivot to fire if they haven't moved. You can't use the firing arc on a dread to avoid frenzy.
That presumes that you don't have 2 other HS picks you want to take. In that case, 1 Havoc squad with 2 other HS beats 2 Obits with 1 other HS.

Perhaps Havocs are supposed to be somewhat "Tactical" compared to the other HS picks?

Correct. The Frenzied Dread pivots 360 to find the nearest visible model before locking in position and firing at that model.

Pharon
31-08-2007, 01:46
That presumes that you don't have 2 other HS picks you want to take. In that case, 1 Havoc squad with 2 other HS beats 2 Obits with 1 other HS.

Perhaps Havocs are supposed to be somewhat "Tactical" compared to the other HS picks?

Correct. The Frenzied Dread pivots 360 to find the nearest visible model before locking in position and firing at that model.

But they aren't more tactical though. They are a static support unit when given heavy weapons. You could use them as a special weapons team but chosen are better for that. So in essence the only time they really beat obliterators is when you don't have the available HS slots.

Ok...so if you rotate the dread 360 degrees then please explain how you are firing at the closest enemy in line of sight. Vehicle firing arcs don't have anything to do with LOS they just restrict you from shooting things outside their arc.

Raven1
31-08-2007, 02:01
The explanation is sane enough, but what I want to know is if the legion specific 'dexs come out before I die, will it just be World Eaters, Emperor's Children, Thousand Sons, and Death Guard or will it have others like Iron Warriors, Alpha Legion, Night Lords. Here's hoping to have atleast one 'dex for the Chaos Undivided legions.

foehammer888
31-08-2007, 02:33
Havocs aren't bad units...they just don't really excel at anything. I don't know, I think too many people are stuck on this "Havocs with lascannons not as good as unit Y" idea. With the following units available:

- terminators with chainfists and combi-meltas
- infiltrating chosen with lots of meltas
- teleporting obliterators with melta-guns
- Raptors with melta-guns

I might be inclined to totally forget the idea of havocs as an anti-tank unit. It costs almost 300 points to get 10 havocs with 4 lascannons, but only a little over 200 for the same unit with heavy bolters. Let the other units deal with tanks with melta-weapons. These guys have the monopoly on anit-infantry firepower.

Foehammer

Occulto
31-08-2007, 02:34
The validity of this statement nearly made me weep.

It's a simple fact of life.

I'd love a return to Slaves to Darkness sized books with uber customisation, but the number of illegal lists produced by the previous codex suggested there was something very wrong. (As an aside, looking at those d1000 tables, it's amusing to hear people say randomness has no place in Chaos...)

Chaos 3.5 had the longest FAQ of all the codices simply because it was poorly organised, often unclear or just plain contradictory. It read like something that'd been hastily written by fifteen different people.

Once you'd used it for a while, and knew all the ins and outs, yes, it worked. But for the person starting 40K, it was a nightmare. Even for some veterans it was confusing - more than any other codex.


They should be spoonfeeding it to them in the BGB. But yes I understand your point.

Ideally yes. But if they introduce new weapons after the BGB, they're going to end up sticking them in the codices anyway.


Actually I really do go for the artwork myself in a codex, but this new one is a complete let down.

The previous codex has simply some of the most fantastic artwork, I've used it from wallpaper on my PC to the background on my mobile (my previous mobile actually had a way to rotate through 4 pictures every 20 mins to 1 hour).

The artwork in this codex is pretty bland overall, some of it is decent, some is recycled and some of it is just bad. I can't believe they actually used an entire page for the picture on pg. 50.

Haven't got my mits on a copy yet. Can't say "yay" or "nay" to the artwork.


They've proved quite deaf before. We'll see what happens.

Agreed.

I just refuse to get caught in the mentality of "GW stuffed up 10 years ago, therefore they're incapable of ever getting it right." Their current financial position demands that they respond to customers.

I mean, c'mon. Sink the boot in when necessary, but some people's persecution complex is getting a little bit tiresome. I don't think I've read so many variations of "GW WOULDN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THEY HAVE A VENDETTA AGAINST ME!!!!" in a loooooooong time.

Looking at things objectively, a lot of stuff makes sense. For example - cult termies? GW have made it clear that they want every option to be available off the shelf - leaving conversions as a purely voluntary thing. (I know there are some exceptions to this) I wouldn't expect to see Termies with noise weapons until there's a dedicated EC upgrade sprue (similar to BT or DA) available.

From a commmercial side, it makes no sense whatsoever to keep armies static from one codex to the next, simply because that removes any incentive for people to buy anything new. If you've got an army you're happy with, and they redo the codex and you don't have to replace anything or buy anything new, then you're not going to part with your cash.


Bah, feed them the posterboys. If they can't handle being overwhelmed they shouldn't be playing chaos. ;)

But honestly, I still think they took it too far. My biggest gripe is that of the units that did remain in the codex, many of them really do suffer from good unit/bad unit syndrome.

If they hadn't gone overboard with the random roll to see what hat you wear today nonsense, if possesed had ended up a true hardcore melee unit like Stealers, DC or Harlies, if Daemons were at least a few points cheaper to actually make them the unit they are trying to be, if Dreads had been left alone since they were already balanced, and if daemonweapons hadn't been made so overly unstable - I really could have lived with the rest of the codex.

True.

On the other hand, they give an opportunity for people to try something different. I'm getting so bored of the "everything must be safe and 'efficient' because that's all that works in tournaments."

We can argue the pros and cons of every unit in another thread, but some people genuinely like the idea of random abilities that present a challenge to use properly. It's part of Chaos, just as much as the Legions. You make an offering to Chaos and you can end up an uber-demigod or a mutated fly.

I'm going to use Possessed and psychotic Dreads, simply because they're quintessential Chaos, not because of their stats. Yup, sometimes its frustrating - but other times it works. If it puts me behind the 8 ball then s*** happens. I play the lists I want to play - not the ones that are a few percentage points more "efficient." For instance, if I want a daemon world army is going to need possessed isn't it?

Remember as well, that what you don't find useful, others will. If I only play against Orks, 1ksons aren't going to be as useful as if I played against SM. AP3 bolters? Laughably useless against 6+ greenskins.


Spawn. :cries:

What's not to love about a big blob of goop?


Instead, I've lost access to units that have no equals in the new codex - and I'll be forced not to use even more units simply because they are distinctly poor choices and most certainly not worth their points.

And even then there are the nit picky things, like why the hell do Chaos Sorcerers STILL have to pay points premiums for Powers with no Psychic defense items, whereas Librarians get their powers practically for free, along with their unlimited use, umilited range Psychic Hoods?

I'd argue that's not a problem with the Chaos sorcerer, rather the fault lies with Psychic Hoods, which are frankly over the top.


Do you have a quote for that? I've seen arguments for both sides saying the same thing basically.

"The designers have stated that the two will/won't work like the WHFB books."

And yet I've to see confirmation for either.

This juicy nugget:


I talked to Mark Harrison (model creator guy) a bit about the Chaos codexes and he said that yes..the Daemon one is definitely coming next year and that the two would work together (IE stuff in one could be used with armies from the other - like Beasts of Chaos and regular Hordes of Chaos in Fantasy).


And what if it isn't compatible? Would you change your stance then?

I've got a big piece of humble pie ready to eat if that happens. :p

But I'm confident I won't need to because if there's one constant of GW, it's that they want to get as much money out of us players as possible. So many Chaos players won't have a reason for buying the Daemon book if it's a standalone, simply because most Chaos players don't have enough daemons to make a fully playable army.

Will the EC player who owns 2 units of 6 daemonettes fork out for a codex that'll get them rules for two Troops choices they can't use in any other list? Of course not. They'll grind their teeth and mutter about generic daemons.


The equivalent would be if they removed Harlequins, Falcons and Firedragons and made a new codex expanding on them and called it Codex: VP denial then you're dead, or if we see Codex: Nidzilla, with base Tyranid Armies getting a "Generic Monstrous Creatures" to substitute.

I'd say that an equivalent would be people complaining that the Eldar codex didn't have detailed rules for every Craftworld, Harlequins, Pirates, and Exodites.

Hell, I'd pay for that. But it'd be as big as an Imperial Armour book, and then we'd be reading pages and pages of people whinging that they were getting robbed by GW because they had to pay for all these rules they had no intention of using. ;)

"GW are thieving swine, they're making me pay 50 quid for a codex when everyone else pays 12! I don't care about Exodites or Pirates."

sebster
31-08-2007, 03:42
I don't think that's exactly true. I don't think it's a whine. It's more a matter of "Why would 9 guys stand around and cheer for one dude with a lascannon?" As Grizzly stated earlier in the thread, it's not an effective use of resources, and people (including some designers) have been looking for ways to get around it since RT.

I personally would be happy if they nixed heavy weapons in Tac/CSM squads altogether and allowed a couple special weapons instead. They'd probably end up being played as intended (dynamic, flexible), leaving the Heavy Support troops to sit back and..well..provide heavy support. :)

10 points for a heavy bolter is pretty cheap. If youíve splashed out on 10 marines just to get that heavy bolter it isnít, but if youíve bought those marines for their own sake, then 10 more points for a heavy bolter isnít a bad deal.

Now, that squad isnít entirely optimized, with the majority of its resources spent on short range shooting and close combat, and a single model with a long range heavy weapon. But flexibility is a wonderful asset. There will be plenty of games where your tactical squad wonít want to advance into close range with the enemy, because the enemy has superior close combat abilities or maybe youíre sitting on an objective. In those situations, a tactical squad without a heavy weapon will spend most of the game doing exactly nothingÖ and suddenly the 10 points spent on a heavy bolter becomes a bargain.

Havocs and obliterators and predators are dedicated heavy weapons units. CSMs are a versatile unit, designed to adapt to fill whatever role battlefield circumstances demand.

Ddraiglais
31-08-2007, 04:19
Once you'd used it for a while, and knew all the ins and outs, yes, it worked. But for the person starting 40K, it was a nightmare. Even for some veterans it was confusing - more than any other codex.

From a commmercial side, it makes no sense whatsoever to keep armies static from one codex to the next, simply because that removes any incentive for people to buy anything new. If you've got an army you're happy with, and they redo the codex and you don't have to replace anything or buy anything new, then you're not going to part with your cash.

I'm going to use Possessed and psychotic Dreads, simply because they're quintessential Chaos, not because of their stats. Yup, sometimes its frustrating - but other times it works. If it puts me behind the 8 ball then s*** happens. I play the lists I want to play - not the ones that are a few percentage points more "efficient." For instance, if I want a daemon world army is going to need possessed isn't it?

But I'm confident I won't need to because if there's one constant of GW, it's that they want to get as much money out of us players as possible. So many Chaos players won't have a reason for buying the Daemon book if it's a standalone, simply because most Chaos players don't have enough daemons to make a fully playable army.



Why should Chaos be a beginners army? It should be complex and give veteran players a chance for new options to explore. Instead, it's SMs with spikes because GW doesn't care about veteran players. There's more money to be had with new players.

I can see that, but I have another option. Why not remake the miniatures so people will be tempted to buy them? I would have bought a bunch of new miniatures with this release. Some of them are great. The new possessed stand out. However, I will not be spending any money because I don't like the new rules. Those possessed are usleless on the table so very few people will buy them. As a business I say GW is screwing things up. I have a lot more diposable income than an average fifteen year old. I think GW is courting the wrong crowd.

I'd think you would be in the minority. I play for fun. I don't do tournaments, but even I wouldn't take units that could be that devastating to my plans.

I love your thinking here. I hope you're right. I don't use daemons, but it would right some of the injustices of this codex. It would also raise my hopes that we might see legion specific rules.

Occulto
31-08-2007, 05:03
Why should Chaos be a beginners army? It should be complex and give veteran players a chance for new options to explore. Instead, it's SMs with spikes because GW doesn't care about veteran players. There's more money to be had with new players.

I think a better question is why shouldn't it be a beginners army?

It just results in a boring game IMHO, if every new player is expected to just start with SM - especially when it seems a lot don't move on to other armies. At least if there's CSM and SM as "beginner" armies, you'll get the whole good/evil thing happening.

I'd argue that supplmentary codices (such as Daemons) give veteran players new avenues to explore - in the same way that RPG supplements allow GMs to introduce further complexity into their campaigns. There's also the modelling aspect to pursue with Chaos - people used to seem to be want to convert because it was cool. The news that mutations were gone provoked a depressing number of "there's no point in converting anymore" comments.

Anyway, it's my belief that the complexity should come through the gameplay, not list construction. You can use the same combination as me, but you certainly don't have to use the same tactics. If you're a veteran, you'll have more devious and clever tactics than a new player. That's the feeling I get about these new codices - it's almost as if the Studio are saying:

"C'mon guys, stop debating lists - there's more to this game than writing combos and working out percentage points of efficiency. Start showing your abilities on the table! Beat the other guy because you know your army better, not because you've got the better collection of modifiers."


I can see that, but I have another option. Why not remake the miniatures so people will be tempted to buy them? I would have bought a bunch of new miniatures with this release. Some of them are great. The new possessed stand out. However, I will not be spending any money because I don't like the new rules. Those possessed are usleless on the table so very few people will buy them. As a business I say GW is screwing things up. I have a lot more diposable income than an average fifteen year old. I think GW is courting the wrong crowd.

Even if you don't use the possessed as possessed, I can see definite potential for mixing the parts into existing squads, or used as Aspiring Champions (to represent how they've moved further up the chain of Chaos gifts). At least you won't have some snot complaining that you haven't paid for the daemonic mutations! :p

They're beautiful models. Buy 'em for their own sake.


I'd think you would be in the minority. I play for fun. I don't do tournaments, but even I wouldn't take units that could be that devastating to my plans.

I disagree. Plenty of people do it. Looted vehicles can run forward at precisely the wrong time, ordinance can land in precisely the wrong direction, even daemons in 3.5 used to be able to scatter in precisely the wrong direction. (It sounds weird talking about it in the past tense). In addition, Berzerkers used to be potentially useless if they ran after a speeder and Thousand Sons could spend the entire game trying to move out of their deployment zone. Hardly reliable stuff.

This whole game's based on the idea that things will just screw up. People have been coping with it for years.

Possessed, daemonweapons and dreads are a gamble, sometimes they stuff up, sometimes they don't. Naturally if you compose a whole list of random stuff that's going to be difficult to handle (admittedly it'd be kind of cool), but a unit here and there in isolation? If your gameplan's so fragile that rolling the wrong possessed gift or a fire frenzy is going to screw you, I do wonder how you'd cope with something big like escalation!


I love your thinking here. I hope you're right. I don't use daemons, but it would right some of the injustices of this codex. It would also raise my hopes that we might see legion specific rules.

I hope I'm right too! :D

Vineas
31-08-2007, 05:08
The only thing that disappoints me about the new Chaos is not the 'dex itself, it's the fact that neither Kharne nor Abby got new sculpts. Yeah, I have ideas in mind for my own Abby but it would have been nice to see an updated, upscaled Abby. He just seems rather small and non-Warmaster like now compared to the new termies for both loyalists and Chaos.

Problem with making Chaos a veteran army and difficult to learn is that it could have the backlash of scaring potential new people away from 40k. If they find Chaos too hard they might think all the armies are similiar, cuz lets face it not everyone is going to sit in a B&M store reading every 'dex front to back, and just decide not to get into it.

Whether or not we like it the game of 40k DOES need new blood. Most people who have been in the hobby for years and years probably buy somthing once every few years and probably mostly off ebay or discount retailers. If GW doesn't do what they can to attract new players then NONE of us veterans will even have a hobby to enjoy in 5 years or so.

Chaos is not dumbed down, 40k is not dumbed down. I'm a math whiz and an accountant and so I would not be slowed down significantly if 40k became like fantasy with modifiers and more # crunching but I can see why GW did what they did. Streamlining is a good thing. I like being able to fit in 2 or 3 games in a single evening. Apoc is supposed to allow for 4k games to be played in the same time frame as a 2k game currently but I don't hear any complaints of Apoc being dumbed down. So how is it that Apoc does what 40k does, only in less time for bigger games, and yet somehow 40k is for noobs and Apoc is for vets?

We all have to keep in mind that every single one of us posters makes up MAYBE 5% of everyone on this planet who plays 40k, probably less than that even, so even if 90% of Warseer does not like 40k or any of it's more recent codeciies does not mean the MAJORITY of players in this hobby do not like them.

People complain enough that Vanilla Marines are too prevalent. Well, imagine if Chaos became 3x more complex than it is now. Which army then do you think will become even more dominant and even more GW's "posterboys"?


I'd think you would be in the minority. I play for fun. I don't do tournaments, but even I wouldn't take units that could be that devastating to my plans.

Funny how people complain about randomness in a game that is all about random dice rolls. I've had mathmatically superior units (on paper anyway) bite it big time for me and I've had "supposedly" worthless units come out as MVP's in games.

For me personally I pick units that I like the intel on and the models, not the rules. Rules I could give a damn about. Guess maybe that's why I'm the only 'nid player in my area to use the so called crappy Lictor, or the supposedly useless Tau Pathfinders and Sniper Teams. Yeah they let me down alot but my favorite creature in the 'nid army fluffwise is the lictor so I don't care how bad they suck, I have 3 of those bad boys...um, err.....things.

fwacho
31-08-2007, 05:21
Ozen dorph.... they did let the CSM keep his bolter via the bolt pistol. you move and get two bolt pistol shots just like every other marine (how cool is that!). (unless I've been misreading pistol rules for the past 10 years) this makes it usefull for dark angels to hop out of a rhino and unleash 20 shots on a weakened squad. thus they are able to target another squad with heavies next turn.

grizzly ruin
31-08-2007, 05:22
All depends on what you care about. Drop 2 marines and add a lascannon, and the havoc squad costs around the same amount, for which you could still get around 4 obliterators. Now the obliterators are cheapers than the havocs, but the havocs have more firepower (4 lascannons plus the rest of the squads weapons), and most importantly, take 1HS slot, while the obliterators take 2. I've found when it comes to many armies and HS units, how expensive a unit is takes a back-seat to how many HS slots it takes.

Yes that's true, they take up one less HS slot.

But the Oblits can split their fire, and are not nearly as much of a VP sandwhich, plus the rest of their overall advantages like mobility and better resilience.



What's better, 1 havoc squad with 4 lascannons taking 1HS slot, or 4 obliterators with 4 lascannons taking 2 HS slots?

Honestly? I tend to go for the Oblits, simply because I have an aversion to putting so many points into any single unit if I can avoid it and I prefer as much mobility as I can muster.




But if you make them too cheap, then Obliterators become the redundant unit. As it stands, obliterators are the better anti-tank unit, while havocs are better long-range anti-infantry.

Yes if they're are too cheap, they cut into Oblits, a little. It's hard to really cut into what Oblits do since they carry a massive compliment of weapons, with twin linked plasmas being downright fantastic.



Actually I believe the problem was more of Oblits undercutting terminators when they were elites.

That, and the poor design of the prior Chaos Terminators.




Give the CSM squads 2 special weapons instead. Give them a heavy bolter to compliment the bolters they usually fire.

2 Special weapons is really the only way to go. If I'm not willing to have my guys standstill for a Lascannon, they certainly aren't going to standstill for anything less. The HB I suppose their could be an argument for, but I just find that having a 200+ point unit of 10 guys stand around, in an army that isn't going to have many units to begin with, counterproductive.






What is with this massive craving for lascannons? With 2 special weapons in CSM squads, up to 4-5 in havocs or chosen, raptors with special weapons, bikes with special weapons. There are lots of other ways to kill tanks.

Tyranid Monstrous Creatures, Enemy Daemon Princes, Falcons, Tanks.

There also good against elite expensive units like Terminators, MEQs, Immortals, etc.

It's not that there aren't other weapons effective against those things, but the range and power coupled is just always good.




One the dread issue. Suppose you give the dread lascannons, and he fire-frenzies. If the nearest unit is a CSM unit, then you risk losing a single 15 point model to the frenzy.

I also risk losing the dread if exposes his back. Which is now a loss of 125 points, a unit, and I still probably killed one of my own CSMs.

It also means, I need to have a unit of CSMs babysitting him so he doesn't end up shooting a DP, or Cult Troops, or Obliterators etc.

I could even have lived with him shooting my own troops, pivoting on the spot is the deal breaker.

And again, why is my chaos army starting to resemble old school Orks?

Maybe we should just have Rhinos blowing up, because this is Chaos.

And Chaos Space Marines infighting amongst themselves because it's Chaos.



Statistically this happens once a game. I also know many opponents who control fire frenzy by simply making careful use of fire arcs. As a dread, he only has a 180 arc of fire. Thus, its possible to orient him such that even in the rare event of a fire frenzy, there is no friendly model in LOS.

The text for crazed says nothing about fire arcs.

It says "...it must pivot on the spot towards the closest visible unit..."

It's uneccesary.




Now, I have always defended this dex, but even I realize after reading it there are some issues that could have been easily fixed.

1) Possessed: I had two solutions
- either just give them 2ccw at the same price
- give them 2 random tables. One for a radom weapon rule, one for a random movement rule.

Honestly, since they hand rending out like hotcakes - it really should have been default for these guys.

At their points cost, with no options for the champ effectively give you the single most overpriced +1 to attack a unit gets in the codex, rending would have been a perfect fit.

Then they could have given them a table for movement modes. Or hell they could have left them alone!

Giving these guys rending would have been a perfect match. And considering their base cost and the need for Rhinos they would be rougly comparable to units like DC (who have the option to fly), Genestealers (who fleet and can scuttle) and Harlequins (who have the best transport in the game).

Again, they went out of their way to try and make each unit distinct, and yet you have at least 4+1 units that all have random rolls or ability tables.

Dreads, Spawn, Posessed, Daemonweapon Lords, and if you're interested Fabius Bile Marines.

Not to mention that technically you need to make random rolls to see when and if your daemons and greater daemons show up.

Just how many random rolls to see if your force will actually do what you planned does one army list need?

It's over the top, it's lazy design and it's a source of total frustration for me.

You can't cut as many units and options and variant lists from an army and then go ahead and severly hamper even more units on top of that, giving them some of the highest price tags in the codex!

As Malisteen has often said, it's like the designers have forgotten that random abilitys and rolls to act are a disadvantage and instead have costed them like bonuses.



2) Lesser Daemons: compared to the rest of the list (which already has lots of redundant units, part of the problem), I would have gone with significantly cheaper (says 7-8 points) and the following WS4 S3 T3 A2. Basically a cannon-fodder assault unit.

A unit like that, I would have use for.



3) Spawn: Feel No Pain.

Or bring their points cost down significantly, there's no way these guys should cost 2x a Raptor, or more than a Rhino.



I for one am glad that Heavy weapons are becoming rarer and more expensive. This cuts back on the amount fielded and makes transports and tanks look to be more viable.

I like what it does for transports and vehicles too.

I dislike how it makes Nidzilla and Falcon lists even more powerful than they already are.

Do you honestly think we're going to see a change to either of these codices anytime remotely soon?



It's a simple fact of life.

I'd love a return to Slaves to Darkness sized books with uber customisation, but the number of illegal lists produced by the previous codex suggested there was something very wrong. (As an aside, looking at those d1000 tables, it's amusing to hear people say randomness has no place in Chaos...)

You can design random tables that add flavor without totally gimping a unit.

For example, you give Posessed Rending, and then their random table roll gives them something like fabius bile marines table, which is actually balanced and flavorful.

Now the unit functions like the fearsome elite melee unit it's supposed to be, while adding a bit of flavor that honestly really isn't going to change things much.

A table that you roll after deployment, which combines movement modes, hand to hand powers and powers that provide resilience to shooting just doesn't cut it.

Or you give them the table they currently have and at the very least give the AC the option for a power weapon or fist.

Or you can do what has been done in the Chaos Codex and recreate 3rd Ed Eldar good unit/bad unit syndrome.

You'd think they'd have learned by now.

Vineas
31-08-2007, 05:35
I am not really a huge fan of trying to down skimmers of any type with lascannons.

Falcons are only armor 12 on the front. Autocannons are going to be better at taking them down....8 shots is better than 4, even if said shots are 2 pts weaker S (as both can only ever glance a skimmer moving more than 6" and only a retard would make that mistake). In a tournament 4 autos are going to be way better than 4 lascannons if you end up playing against a horde type army (which does happen on accasion :D).

If you don't think you can drop 2 or 3 uber falcons just destroy the rest of the army with your anti-infantry stuff (you do take some don't you?). 3 near-invincible falcons is going to cost in the neighborhood of 600 pts. At 1500 pts that doesn't leave a lot of non-vehicle options.

Iracundus
31-08-2007, 05:38
I'm noticing distinct Codex designer trends. Remember the Thorpe 3rd ed. Eldar Codex had its mix of too good/too bad units and also abounded in random rolls such as the number of shots for scatter laser and pulse laser, etc... He seems to have a preference for such randomness, and at least in the 3rd ed. Eldar Codex, the strange idea that players would take a mix of good and bad units and end up with an overall "balanced" list. Instead people avoided the bad units and stocked up on the good ones. I'm getting a sense of deja vu.

Vineas
31-08-2007, 05:51
Problem with Eldar codex was that the "bad" units had to compete with all the "good" stuff in the same slots; Hawks competing with Vypers, DA's competing with Guardians, Jetbikes competing with Vypers whereas in the new Chaos 'dex the things I can only see glaringly "bad" (and thats still opinion) are GLD's and posessed and spawn. Well, 2 of the 3 aren't competing for any FoC slots and posessed might be random but we do know they are geared for assault and so the only elites they compete with in that regard are a kitted-out chosen squad, which when 10 strong and kitted out with 5 pf's, is going to cost more than a 10 man pos. squad and still not really be any more badass in an assuault, especially considering you have a 33.333333333% chance to roll 2 possible abilities that trump 5 powerfists (especially rending).

So from a "bad" vs "good" standpoint I think 3rd Eldar had it way worst than the new Chaos and 3 units that some people won't take in comparison to about 8 units some people wouldnt take is a LITTLE better.

Occulto
31-08-2007, 06:18
You can design random tables that add flavor without totally gimping a unit.

For example, you give Posessed Rending, and then their random table roll gives them something like fabius bile marines table, which is actually balanced and flavorful.

Now the unit functions like the fearsome elite melee unit it's supposed to be, while adding a bit of flavor that honestly really isn't going to change things much.

If it doesn't change much, it just sounds like rules for rules sake to me. I can't say that I've ever really been a fan of that concept.


A table that you roll after deployment, which combines movement modes, hand to hand powers and powers that provide resilience to shooting just doesn't cut it.

Or you give them the table they currently have and at the very least give the AC the option for a power weapon or fist.

I would have preferred to roll on the table before deployment. Not entirely sure why then didn't do it that way.


Or you can do what has been done in the Chaos Codex and recreate 3rd Ed Eldar good unit/bad unit syndrome.

You'd think they'd have learned by now.

I disagree that the two are comparable, for the reasons Vineas just posted.

Rioghan Murchadha
31-08-2007, 06:27
After reading a whole tonne of these chaos threads, I'd just like to take a moment to stitch together two recurring themes that I've seen. These themes, when taken seperately, seem to make sense, but when you combine them in the context of the greater chaos complaint continuum, strange things happen.

1) X Item/Unit Isn't efficient, nobody will use it. (Along with its twin brother "Why did they remove X Item/Unit? I used it all the time!")

On the surface, a perfectly reasonable, if self-centred concept.

2) How does limiting your options equate to flavour/theme? (Typically used as a counter-argument to people complaining about the loss of the 3.5 ed codex's books of chaos.)

If 1 is true, and most people base their choices on battlefield efficiency, then I would suggest that 2 DOES in fact enforce flavour/theme in the sense that it does not let you go against the prescribed doctrine/fighting style, or general availability of equipment unique to said force.

All a long winded way of saying I want my Rubric terminators back.. not stupid living rookies with a flag of Tzeentch.. I would also like my CHOSEN of Tzeentch to be sorcerers again.. rather than rookie worshippers with again, a flag of Tzeentch. Etc. etc. All my terminators are STILL going to only be armed with combi-bolters/power weapons except the champion, since that's how the Sons roll.. Although now they'll be faster than the rest of the army..

Edit Re: Occulto on randomness: Thousand Sons can still spend the entire game trying to get out of their deployment zone.. Even moreso of you assassinate the squad champs... Of course, that's now only the rubric marines.. since there are no other Sons units.

sebster
31-08-2007, 06:32
Ozen dorph.... they did let the CSM keep his bolter via the bolt pistol. you move and get two bolt pistol shots just like every other marine (how cool is that!). (unless I've been misreading pistol rules for the past 10 years) this makes it usefull for dark angels to hop out of a rhino and unleash 20 shots on a weakened squad. thus they are able to target another squad with heavies next turn.

Huh? The CSM keep their bolters by having bolters listed in their equipment.

And bolt pistols aren't the same thing, in addition to the shorter range you can't move and move and fire twice with pistols.

Sovereign
31-08-2007, 08:42
Ok...so if you rotate the dread 360 degrees then please explain how you are firing at the closest enemy in line of sight. Vehicle firing arcs don't have anything to do with LOS they just restrict you from shooting things outside their arc.
A vehicle (i.e. Dread) that doesn't move may pivot for free on the spot. So it simply pivots to locate the nearest model (friend or foe) in LOS.

(If you go back to Shooting LOS, it only talks about things that block LOS (e.g. terrain, larger objects, other vehicles). It is clear that 360 degree LOS is presumed.)

So the easiest way to deal with the Frenzied Dread is to assume it spins in place the full 360 deg and sees what is available. Then it locks into position turning as much or as little to place the target in the forward fire arc.

And then it shoots it.

I don't see why this is difficult at all.

adreal
31-08-2007, 13:27
Okay, I havn't rread this whole thread, and I wont....

I have one simple word for all you chaos players bitrching about invailidated models

SQUATS!!!!!

That's not a bunch of models, it's a whole freaking race, gone, and GW never mention them. So you can all bitch about models and rules or whatever, but squat players are the only ones that have a legitiment beef, chaos still has a f'in codex to use don't they

Captain Micha
31-08-2007, 13:41
two words for you adreal


















Thank you

what you were expecting worse?

Pharon
31-08-2007, 14:36
A vehicle (i.e. Dread) that doesn't move may pivot for free on the spot. So it simply pivots to locate the nearest model (friend or foe) in LOS.

(If you go back to Shooting LOS, it only talks about things that block LOS (e.g. terrain, larger objects, other vehicles). It is clear that 360 degree LOS is presumed.)

So the easiest way to deal with the Frenzied Dread is to assume it spins in place the full 360 deg and sees what is available. Then it locks into position turning as much or as little to place the target in the forward fire arc.

And then it shoots it.

I don't see why this is difficult at all.

I don't really see why it's difficult either. Going back over the prior posts I might have gotten thrown by the whole 360 degree comment. It seemed to me at the time that you were saying if you placed a CSM squad behind the dread and it fire frenzied you could just spin the dread 360 degrees and there by locking your CSM squad out of the forward firing arc so the dread could no longer shoot them (or have to shoot something else). But from your last post that might not have been what you were trying to say after all.

So to clarify:
If you have a dread followed closely by a CSM squad and that squad is the closest squad to the dread. If you roll a fire frenzy the dread will have to turn enough so it can get the squad into it's firing arc and then fire upon the squad.

DhaosAndy
31-08-2007, 14:46
Ok, I've read the new chaos codex from cover to cover a couple of times now.

It is quite the worst chaos codex ever, even the ver 3 dex was better.
This one is bland, flavourless and basically boring.
It will be endured by me but, not enjoyed, the only hope it seems to me is that the daemon and legion dex's will put the interest back because this dex is a big step towards killing this hobby for me.

Finaly I'll add this, all the above is personal to me and, some may think nothing to do with GW.

Consider this though, possessed, lovely models, I will buy sufficient that all of my legions will get a new unit; 5 strong for the Black Legion, 9 strong for the Thousand Sons and 8 strong for the World Eaters (they'll probably never be used in a game), with the excess being used for conversions.

If they had made a half decent job of this chaos codex, or just retained the current one!

I would have bought 3 x 10 strong units for the Black Legion and similarly 3 x 9, 3 x 8 for the other legions + a couple of boxes for bits.

I don't believe I'm the only person that thinks like this.

I wonder if anyone from GW will tot up the lost sales.

Captain Micha
31-08-2007, 14:59
Like the Da, you guys are really the minority in opinion. Most everyone -likes- the new codex. I have yet to see it. I want to, just so I can laugh at everyone's overwant of rules to represent every little thing on their mini just like the da people did, and craftworld dar while failing to realise they have -more- options now than ever before

DhaosAndy
31-08-2007, 15:39
Seen it all before mate, seen it all before, just for the record, in a few months when we've all studied this carefully, certain non chaos players will be complaining about how cheesy the new dex is, shrugs. They haven't taken away the cheese just removed the flavour.

But, tis not my doing, I merely foretell......

Zerosoul
31-08-2007, 15:52
Remember, folks - bizarre, non-sensical restrictions that turn the Chaos Gods into the universe's biggest sufferers of OCD ("Lord Khorne, bless us as we go forth to take skulls in your name! We have slain worlds in your glorious name, and seek your blessing on the eve of battle so we may continue to shed blood for you!" "NO! NEVER! YOU HAVE SEVEN GUYS!") and incredibly restrictive views of the fluff backed up by rules that hyper-exaggerate strengths and weaknesses turning entire armies into cartoonish caricatures are flavorful. Not being able to take Spiky Bits and Daemonic Fire means it's flavorless.

Captain Micha
31-08-2007, 16:08
Ok, better way to phrase it, if it's like the eldar codex I'm still fine with it. Why? *points up at zerosoul's post*

cartoon armies are on their way out.

Ddraiglais
31-08-2007, 16:15
I think a better question is why shouldn't it be a beginners army?

It just results in a boring game IMHO, if every new player is expected to just start with SM - especially when it seems a lot don't move on to other armies. At least if there's CSM and SM as "beginner" armies, you'll get the whole good/evil thing happening.

I'd argue that supplmentary codices (such as Daemons) give veteran players new avenues to explore - in the same way that RPG supplements allow GMs to introduce further complexity into their campaigns. There's also the modelling aspect to pursue with Chaos - people used to seem to be want to convert because it was cool. The news that mutations were gone provoked a depressing number of "there's no point in converting anymore" comments.

Anyway, it's my belief that the complexity should come through the gameplay, not list construction. You can use the same combination as me, but you certainly don't have to use the same tactics. If you're a veteran, you'll have more devious and clever tactics than a new player. That's the feeling I get about these new codices - it's almost as if the Studio are saying:

"C'mon guys, stop debating lists - there's more to this game than writing combos and working out percentage points of efficiency. Start showing your abilities on the table! Beat the other guy because you know your army better, not because you've got the better collection of modifiers."



Even if you don't use the possessed as possessed, I can see definite potential for mixing the parts into existing squads, or used as Aspiring Champions (to represent how they've moved further up the chain of Chaos gifts). At least you won't have some snot complaining that you haven't paid for the daemonic mutations! :p

They're beautiful models. Buy 'em for their own sake.



I disagree. Plenty of people do it. Looted vehicles can run forward at precisely the wrong time, ordinance can land in precisely the wrong direction, even daemons in 3.5 used to be able to scatter in precisely the wrong direction. (It sounds weird talking about it in the past tense). In addition, Berzerkers used to be potentially useless if they ran after a speeder and Thousand Sons could spend the entire game trying to move out of their deployment zone. Hardly reliable stuff.

This whole game's based on the idea that things will just screw up. People have been coping with it for years.

Possessed, daemonweapons and dreads are a gamble, sometimes they stuff up, sometimes they don't. Naturally if you compose a whole list of random stuff that's going to be difficult to handle (admittedly it'd be kind of cool), but a unit here and there in isolation? If your gameplan's so fragile that rolling the wrong possessed gift or a fire frenzy is going to screw you, I do wonder how you'd cope with something big like escalation!



I hope I'm right too! :D

Because Chaos should be the most varied and colorful list out there and not SMs with spikes. The only way to represent Chaos without losing that is with special rules.

There are plenty of other lists that can be used by beginners. IG comes to mind. DE aren't too complicated. Not everyone has to play MEQs.

For starters, I can't use daemons. That book will do nothing for me. There are a lot of other Chaos players that are in the same boat. Even so, those that want to use daemons will have to wait for that book. We have no idea how dumbed down those rules will be. To top it all off, we are not 100% on whether they will be usable by CSM players. I do agree that it would be one of the most idiotic things GW has ever done if they are not compatable (and anyone who's been around for a while knows GW is capable of some pretty idiotic things), but we do not know for sure. The promise of possible legion rules is nice. However, I don't trust GW enough to deliver on "options". Even if these codices came out, how many years down the road will it be? It's also possible that they could screw those rules up as well.

Some of the differences come through in game play, but a lot of how an army plays is dictated by how it's put together. It's neither one nor the other. It's both. Some of us aren't that good at conversions. Not everyone is in the hobby for the art side of it. It's miniature wargaming, not miniature painting. While I love seeing great conversions and paintjobs, that is a secondary aspect of the hobby.

This is where I have a problem with a lot of youse that are defending the codex. You guys are assuming that everyone who has a problem with it is a powergamer that min/max every aspect of their army. When I build an army I use three basic criteria: 1) does it fit the theme of what I want? 2) do I like the model or can I find an alternative that I like? 3) Is it useful to me on the tabletop? I freely admit that I won't take units that I think will hurt my army. Random possessed and crazy dreads are two great examples. However, I don't crunch numbers either. If I don't like a model or it doesn't fit with my army, I won't use it no matter how effective it is. There are a lot of guys complaining that their armies have lost their flavor. The responses we get are accusing us of four HS and nine oblits, accusations of being powergamers, or you just min/max.

Here's where I love the models, but probably won't use them. I MAY find a use for them as daemons instead. That's the only place I could see justifying them.

Umm, I'm not that great at painting either. I wouldn't buy minis just to paint them.

Isn't that the price Ork players pay to have an extremely powerful unit that isn't in their dex? Even today with GPS, lasers, etc; friendly fire happens. Ordinance has never been the safest way to go. The rules just make it more realistic. Here I'll give you that dread rules are realistic. SOME daemon weapons could be represented the way they are now, but they're overly simplified. Possessed should have their abilities well before a battle. The bezerkers chasing a vehicle thing was a glitch that tournament powergamers discovered. I highly doubt that it was intended as part of the game.

Things do screw up. You might miss a lot during a game with good BS. You might lose some assaults you would normally win. That should be part of the game, but to have things that are designed to screw up won't get many people to buy those models.

A lot of people keep harping on tactics when someone complains about the new dex. I don't see how one can have effective tactics without reliable units. I can see a unit here and there. Others have suggested to me that to be a fluffy IW player I could take 3 dreads with the new codex. That is just pure insanity. So one of the best ways for me to still represent my army would be to take three options that could be as harmful to my own troops as they are to the enemy.



The only thing that disappoints me about the new Chaos is not the 'dex itself, it's the fact that neither Kharne nor Abby got new sculpts. Yeah, I have ideas in mind for my own Abby but it would have been nice to see an updated, upscaled Abby. He just seems rather small and non-Warmaster like now compared to the new termies for both loyalists and Chaos.

Problem with making Chaos a veteran army and difficult to learn is that it could have the backlash of scaring potential new people away from 40k. If they find Chaos too hard they might think all the armies are similiar, cuz lets face it not everyone is going to sit in a B&M store reading every 'dex front to back, and just decide not to get into it.

Whether or not we like it the game of 40k DOES need new blood. Most people who have been in the hobby for years and years probably buy somthing once every few years and probably mostly off ebay or discount retailers. If GW doesn't do what they can to attract new players then NONE of us veterans will even have a hobby to enjoy in 5 years or so.

Chaos is not dumbed down, 40k is not dumbed down. I'm a math whiz and an accountant and so I would not be slowed down significantly if 40k became like fantasy with modifiers and more # crunching but I can see why GW did what they did. Streamlining is a good thing. I like being able to fit in 2 or 3 games in a single evening. Apoc is supposed to allow for 4k games to be played in the same time frame as a 2k game currently but I don't hear any complaints of Apoc being dumbed down. So how is it that Apoc does what 40k does, only in less time for bigger games, and yet somehow 40k is for noobs and Apoc is for vets?

We all have to keep in mind that every single one of us posters makes up MAYBE 5% of everyone on this planet who plays 40k, probably less than that even, so even if 90% of Warseer does not like 40k or any of it's more recent codeciies does not mean the MAJORITY of players in this hobby do not like them.

People complain enough that Vanilla Marines are too prevalent. Well, imagine if Chaos became 3x more complex than it is now. Which army then do you think will become even more dominant and even more GW's "posterboys"?



Funny how people complain about randomness in a game that is all about random dice rolls. I've had mathmatically superior units (on paper anyway) bite it big time for me and I've had "supposedly" worthless units come out as MVP's in games.

For me personally I pick units that I like the intel on and the models, not the rules. Rules I could give a damn about. Guess maybe that's why I'm the only 'nid player in my area to use the so called crappy Lictor, or the supposedly useless Tau Pathfinders and Sniper Teams. Yeah they let me down alot but my favorite creature in the 'nid army fluffwise is the lictor so I don't care how bad they suck, I have 3 of those bad boys...um, err.....things.

I don't use either, but they could have done newer models. Think about how small he'll look if he gets that rumored terminator bodyguard.

In most cases there would be veteran players that would warn the new guy. Even if there wasn't, the last codex wasn't nearly as complicated as some people are making it out to be.

I know plenty of decade old vets who buy new minis fairly regularly. As I said before, new models are incentive enough for a lot of people. How many people would have bought the Abby and Kharne models you asked for? Then there's always the purchase just to add to your armies. As far as Ebay or discount retailers go, that's just being smart. In a round about way GW gets their money anyways.

Dumbed down/streamlined, po-tay-to/po-ta-to. You choose to use the word that's the party line. I choose to call it the way I see it. I'd rather play one fun game than 2-3 simplified games.

Apocalypse is for veterans on so many levels. First of all, it's steamlining isn't an oversimplification of an army's rules. Apocalypse has a close deployment, more destructive weapons, and bigger templates just to name a few ways they are speeding the game up. When 70 IG die when a BB goes up, that's speeding up the game! Another reason why it's for vets is that it isn't competitive. I think it takes an older person (in most cases) to be able to have fun without being cut throat. I also think that veterans will have an easier time with figuring out allies that make sense since vets usually know more fluff than newer players. Apocalypse is also 3K points or better. Quite a few veteran players can whip an army that big out right now. Not too many newer players can. The last big reason Apocalypse is being touted as a game for veterans is marketing. It's already been mentioned that veteran players aren't going to spend as much as newer players even though the average veteran player probably has more disposable income than your average teen. Now what if the points were unlimited? What if a guy you game with gets himself a nice 8K point Necron army? What if you can't figure out a way past the veil thing with what you have? I was a little bit incorrect when I said older guys aren't competitive. I should have said that older guys are competitive in different ways. The most glaring way that older guys compete is with stuff. Your neighbor buys a new riding lawn mower so you go out and buy a huge riding lawnmower with a juice bar on the back of it even though you can't afford it and really don't need it..:) That's the way guys are. I think Apocalypse is designed to take advantage of this.

Yes and no. Politicians have figured out that if you call them, then it's representative of X amount of people. If you write them, then it's worth Y amount of people. I'm sure they've figured out emails too. When they do polls, they don't ask everyone a question. They ask a set amount of people. Granted, the people on here are not a random sampling, but I would venture to say that it's a pretty decent representation of the 40K community as a whole. So far every Chaos player I've talked to about the new dex hates the idea of it. Does that mean everyone? Of course it doesn't. It does mean that my views aren't alone. Even Gav Thorpe admits that they knew the codex was going to be hated by a lot of people when they redid it. I would argue against what you're saying here. I used my friends as an example. My friends are in a few places in the US so it may not be a good representation of 40K players as a whole. The Warseer community is all over the planet. We have Americans, Brits, Aussies, Canadians, Africans, continental Europeans, and I think even a few Latin Americans and Asians. We have people who are tournament players, belong to gaming groups, or just play on their kitchen table. While the opinions on here might not match the exact percentage of people who like/dislike something, I would bet it's pretty close.

I agree with you here, but that's part of the game. That's a measure of how well your units will perform. Even with the best equipment and some of the best training in the World, a U.S. soldier doesn't always hit his target. If a battle went sour, I'm sure a few of them might run away. In game terms WS4 units might lose to WS3 (I know there are other factors, but I'm trying to keep it simple) in a fight. The whole army might even lose most of the fights in a game. However, if you played ten games; you're going to win most of those fights. With things like possessed, you can't predict what they'll be good for until after they're deployed. How useful is that? You might be able to predict what they'll do half the time. That's not too good. Now add in the random dice rolls that you were talking about and possessed don't look so good. Dreads can be even worse. They can take out your own units. On top of that they can miss just as much as the next guy.

I won't choose a model just because it's effective. I have to like the way they look. I am not a power gamer. I do like to win, but it's not as important as it use to be to me. If a model doesn't fit the overall feel of my army, I won't take it. If it's just plain ugly, I won't take it. Even if it's a gorgeous model, fits the theme of my army, and is good on the table; I won't take it if it's looks don't fit the rest of my army. What I'm saying is that I do understand those of you who like models based on other things than just stats.


Like the Da, you guys are really the minority in opinion. Most everyone -likes- the new codex. I have yet to see it. I want to, just so I can laugh at everyone's overwant of rules to represent every little thing on their mini just like the da people did, and craftworld dar while failing to realise they have -more- options now than ever before

So you've taken a poll? Between the posts here and talking to people I know, there is quite a bit of hate for this new dex. It might not be better than 50% of the people. You are right that it is a minority, but it is a lot more sizeable than you are implying. To make matters worse, Gav Thorpe admits the design team knew they were going to **** people off. Please explain to me about more options then. This new dex would restrict me to very few flavorless units if I continued to play 40K.



Seen it all before mate, seen it all before, just for the record, in a few months when we've all studied this carefully, certain non chaos players will be complaining about how cheesy the new dex is, shrugs. They haven't taken away the cheese just removed the flavour.

But, tis not my doing, I merely foretell......

I've been saying this all along. There isn't a company out there that is capable of making a set of miniature rules that can't somehow be abused. It's not possible without taking away almost every choice out there. People will find a way to abuse this list in tournaments, and then the whining of how cheesy the new codex is will begin.



Ok, better way to phrase it, if it's like the eldar codex I'm still fine with it. Why? *points up at zerosoul's post*

cartoon armies are on their way out.

You mean like dreads that fire on their own troops because they're a mm closer than the enemy, possessed that don't know what they're doing until the battle has started, or changing models around because someone might get offended that their teen saw some lead with breasts?

I love how the fanboys keep attacking the last codex or anyone who dislikes this new dex. The last codex wasn't perfect. I don't think anyone is saying that. I think that most of us who dislike the new codex are saying that GW could have fixed the last codex without butchering it. They could have toned down some things, upped the cost on others, and even thrown out a rule or two. There were some cool things in there that could have been fun with some tweaking. I'm sorry if I happen to ask for some work from a company that I spend a ton of money on.

DhaosAndy
31-08-2007, 16:16
Captain Micha: "Ok, better way to phrase it, if it's like the eldar codex I'm still fine with it. Why? *points up at zerosoul's post*

cartoon armies are on their way out."

Yes, because the eldar codex hasn't prompted the use of multiple units of Harlies, riding falcons has it :rolleyes:

Vaktathi
31-08-2007, 16:47
Okay, I havn't rread this whole thread, and I wont....

I have one simple word for all you chaos players bitrching about invailidated models

SQUATS!!!!!

That's not a bunch of models, it's a whole freaking race, gone, and GW never mention them. So you can all bitch about models and rules or whatever, but squat players are the only ones that have a legitiment beef, chaos still has a f'in codex to use don't they


that was 15 years ago in a totally different version of the game, and was also the least popular army at the time from what I've heard, and wasnt exactly something that was at the core of the game background. They stopped making Squat models like 3 years after the game started? And then gave them more time before totally dropping them from the game?

and unless you yourself had a large Squat army, I don't see why you should complain to much.

Sovereign
31-08-2007, 16:47
I don't really see why it's difficult either.

If you have a dread followed closely by a CSM squad and that squad is the closest squad to the dread. If you roll a fire frenzy the dread will have to turn enough so it can get the squad into it's firing arc and then fire upon the squad.
'Zactly so!

Captain Micha
31-08-2007, 16:57
Yes, because the eldar codex hasn't prompted the use of multiple units of Harlies, riding falcons has it :rolleyes:


the only hard part about that list, is the falcon.. harlies suck compared to banshees, scorpions or firedragons. they look better on paper than they really are, which even then isn't all that hot

I for one give a sigh of relief when I see harlies and falcons together.

Sovereign
31-08-2007, 17:01
Because Chaos should be the most varied and colorful list out there and not SMs with spikes.

For starters, I can't use daemons.

When I build an army I use three basic criteria: 1) does it fit the theme of what I want? 2) do I like the model or can I find an alternative that I like? 3) Is it useful to me on the tabletop?

The bezerkers chasing a vehicle thing was a glitch that tournament powergamers discovered. I highly doubt that it was intended as part of the game.

Others have suggested to me that to be a fluffy IW player I could take 3 dreads with the new codex. That is just pure insanity. So one of the best ways for me to still represent my army would be to take three options that could be as harmful to my own troops as they are to the enemy.

So far every Chaos player I've talked to about the new dex hates the idea of it.
However, CSM *are* basically just "SM with spikes". That's why basic CSM have +1A for BP&CCW at all times. That's why CSM can take Marks and join Cults that make themselves even spikier. And it's why the have to take 10 guys to get a Heavy weapon in the basic squad. CSM are being designed so they can't play shooty MSU like SM. GW is saying loud and clear: if you want to be spiky, you play Chaos SM, and if you want to be MSU shooty, play Loyalist SM.

For starters you *can* use Daemons - you just don't want to. But the option is there, and it's a fair one.

There is nothing in the new CSM Codex that prevents you from fulfilling your three criteria. It just means you don't get your stupid rules for free.

In WFB, leading Frenzied troops around by the nose is pretty common. However 40k is designed to be less stupid that way, with more control over one's forces.

Three Dreads aren't totally unreasonable. While they *could* Fire Frenzy every a lot, it's a rare game that they would. You're still talking about something that only occurs 1/6 of the time.

Finally, *I* am a Chaos player, and I like the Codex. Most polls show the vast majority of players like the Codex.

DhaosAndy
31-08-2007, 17:24
Captain Micha: "the only hard part about that list, is the falcon.. harlies suck compared to banshees, scorpions or firedragons. they look better on paper than they really are, which even then isn't all that hot

I for one give a sigh of relief when I see harlies and falcons together."

Well I'm now certain we're playing entirely different games, scorpions and firedragons are only comparable to harlies in that they compete for elite slots. Banshee's however, are entirely inferior to harlies, unless all their opponents are doomed or SOB or preferably both!!

@ Sovereign: See in the current dex oblits are a no brainer, pretty much, for one elite slot, everything else is competing for the other two. In the new dex Terminators are a no brainer, the question is not if but, how many.

Now if your following a theme without concern for efficency none of the math hammer matters. If your looking to win at all however, it does matter and if your looking to win in competative play it matters a lot. To suggest otherwise is foolish.

Captain Micha
31-08-2007, 17:27
there's any other way to take banshees?

let alone ten of them with a serpent.....

grizzly ruin
31-08-2007, 17:28
I am not really a huge fan of trying to down skimmers of any type with lascannons.

Falcons are only armor 12 on the front. Autocannons are going to be better at taking them down....8 shots is better than 4, even if said shots are 2 pts weaker S (as both can only ever glance a skimmer moving more than 6" and only a retard would make that mistake).

I'm too tired to bother with the math at the moment, but the last thread I remember reading on the subject had Lascannons really close to the same ability to effect the falcons.

At which point, against all of the other hardcore stuff from TMCs, Land Raiders, DPs, Monoliths, Tanks of All Kinds, all the way down to MEQs, Terminators, Enemy Oblits - The Lascannon is simply comes out on top.

Don't get me wrong, I like Autocannons.

But seing as Oblits and Havocs now compete, and taking heavies in CSM squads has been made prohibitively restrictive - well you get the idea.




If you don't think you can drop 2 or 3 uber falcons just destroy the rest of the army with your anti-infantry stuff (you do take some don't you?). 3 near-invincible falcons is going to cost in the neighborhood of 600 pts. At 1500 pts that doesn't leave a lot of non-vehicle options.

You can't do that.

Because it's not the Falcons you are worried about.

It's the Harlequin squads that are going to butcher through your force if you don't keep the Falcons at bay.



Problem with Eldar codex was that the "bad" units had to compete with all the "good" stuff in the same slots; Hawks competing with Vypers, DA's competing with Guardians, Jetbikes competing with Vypers whereas in the new Chaos 'dex the things I can only see glaringly "bad" (and thats still opinion) are GLD's and posessed and spawn. Well, 2 of the 3 aren't competing for any FoC slots and posessed might be random but we do

In an elite army, where every unit is expensive and an investment, with no true cannon fodder units and less than average scoring units than other forces - Competing for points in my army list is just as bad as competing for FoC slots.

And I just look at the spawn and think to myself, why would't I put those points into an AC with a Fist? Or a Rhino? Or Some Icons? Or More Raptors?

The Models? The Models look just as good on my shelf as they do shambling into combat rolling their random # of attacks and getting autokilled thanks to being fearless.



So from a "bad" vs "good" standpoint I think 3rd Eldar had it way worst than the new Chaos and 3 units that some people won't take in comparison to about 8 units some people wouldnt take is a LITTLE better.

It's more than 3 in my opinion, but it doesn't matter if it's only 3.

There should be no units that are outright visibly bad.

You do not cut into an army as hard as Chaos has been cut into butchering more options than any other army list has lost or will lose in one giant cleave, without making sure all of the units are well designed and have a clear purpose other than to appease some devs love of random rolls.

Well you can, but you can expect a bunch of your fanbase to be seriously pissed off about it, and no longer put faith in you as a company for an amazingly long time.


SQUATS!!!!!

That's not a bunch of models, it's a whole freaking race, gone, and GW never mention them. So you can all bitch about models and rules or whatever, but squat players are the only ones that have a legitiment beef, chaos still has a f'in codex to use don't they

I rest my case.



If it doesn't change much, it just sounds like rules for rules sake to me. I can't say that I've ever really been a fan of that concept.

Deathwing assault is an entire codex built around rules for rules sake.

This whole game is rules for rules sake.

Otherwise we all play the same army list, with a butload of units and the game is effectively balanced since we all have access to the same things.

As a random side note, I'm curious why the new CSM Characters did not get any army affecting abilities like DA and BA, and any SM redux or SW codex is probably going to do.




I would have preferred to roll on the table before deployment. Not entirely sure why then didn't do it that way.

Because for the most part they really don't actually know as much about effectiveness on the table as we as players do.





Like the Da, you guys are really the minority in opinion. Most everyone -likes- the new codex. I have yet to see it. I want to, just so I can laugh at everyone's overwant of rules to represent every little thing on their mini just like the da people did, and craftworld dar while failing to realise they have -more- options now than ever before

And like you a giant majority of people who like the dex or are defending it are new to chaos, don't play chaos at all or haven't even seen the codex yet but are willing to pop into threads like these to "laugh" at people who have legitimate complaints on a topic they apparently have no basis to even discuss.


Remember, folks - bizarre, non-sensical restrictions that turn the Chaos Gods into the universe's biggest sufferers of OCD ("Lord Khorne, bless us as we go forth to take skulls in your name! We have slain worlds in your glorious name, and seek your blessing on the eve of battle so we may continue to shed blood for you!" "NO! NEVER! YOU HAVE SEVEN GUYS!") and incredibly restrictive views of the fluff backed up by rules that hyper-exaggerate strengths and weaknesses turning entire armies into cartoonish caricatures are flavorful. Not being able to take Spiky Bits and Daemonic Fire means it's flavorless.

What you mean like:
random rolls for posessed
random rolls for daemon weapons that kill their owners 1/3rd of the time and cost as much as 2 raptors
Dreads that were balanced being changed to shoot their own guys and get themselves killed
Effective Daemons being totally removed for deepstriking scouts that are overpriced for their abilities
spawn who have a random rolls all over the place
Emphasis on Emo Renegades over the Legions

Would the CHAOS = RANDOM DICE ROLLS be apart of that...


incredibly restrictive views of the fluff backed up by rules that hyper-exaggerate strengths and weaknesses turning entire armies into cartoonish caricatures are flavorful.

Why are you willing to defend one set of restrictive views of fluff backed up by rules that end up with cartoonish caricatures of the army over another?



So to clarify:
If you have a dread followed closely by a CSM squad and that squad is the closest squad to the dread. If you roll a fire frenzy the dread will have to turn enough so it can get the squad into it's firing arc and then fire upon the squad.


'Zactly so!

And thus, you've spent 2 hundred points on CSMs for them to baby sit your dread.

Maybe we'll get lucky in the next codex and they'll make him fleet and engage your own unit in CC with Bloodrage too! Won't that be awesome!

:eyebrows:

Captain Micha
31-08-2007, 17:42
I didn't need to play chaos to know it was busted. One flip through that thing that was the 3.5 codex and the inner powergamer screamed to join the legions of chaos. It had nothing to do with the love of the fluff, which was alright. but could have been better. Nor the 'uniqueness' of the armies listed within because I felt they were just marine rip offs with what they got ultimately. The army I was going to make was not even what most chaos would consider even viable because it was 'too daemony' and don't get me started on the crapload of uber wargear that you could get

I reserved my opinion of the Eldar codex and the Da codex until I saw them for myself. Which ran right opposite of what 'everyone' said until the polls came up. They were vast improvements over what was.

Unless they some how totally went the opposite way of those, I doubt my opinion of the new dex vs the old is going to change much. I'll wait and see, I still might end up hating it like you, but I seriously doubt it.

Also, I feel that most of these new codex threads are the same old song and dance over and over.. how are your complaints any more valid than the last two sets? Answer. they aren't unless your codex is down there with the orks

I bet when Orks come out there will be complaints galore too. Even though that dex is so weak that any 'nerfing' gw will apply to it will infact be 10x better than what they have.

IJW
31-08-2007, 17:49
And like you a giant majority of people who like the dex or are defending it are new to chaos, don't play chaos at all or haven't even seen the codex yet but are willing to pop into threads like these to "laugh" at people who have legitimate complaints on a topic they apparently have no basis to even discuss.
Or have been playing since Rogue Trader came out and Chaos didn't even exist as a 40k force. :rolleyes: I've been defending most of the new 'dex and I've got both the original 'limited edition' Treacher Marines.

Go look at the poll (http://warseer.com/forums/40k-general-discussion/100637-your-views-on-the-new-chaos-codez.html): currently running 33 for, 6 against and 4 not bothered (one of which was me).

Warp Zero
31-08-2007, 17:59
You mean like dreads that fire on their own troops because they're a mm closer than the enemy, possessed that don't know what they're doing until the battle has started.....

Well, written post Ddraiglais. I enjoyed reading it.

I've been trying to follow this thread for a while now. Trying to get a sense of how people are feeling about the new Codex. For the most part, what I've heard isn't fine with me. Possessed having random abilities doesn't bother me. I think the key to using Possessed is assigning them a role without the random table. Look at their abilities and assign them a plan. What happens after you roll is just a bonus modifier. Its not like the results on the table are change their mission drastically.

But....talking about the Dread....yeah, I'll agree with you on that one. Its annoying to think at any moment something horribly could go wrong like "friendly fire" from something so well armed. Yes, tactically....a Chaos player can do things to minimalize such an event, but I think most people are feeling that its an added level game depth/decision making toward the annoying rather than the cool.

What, may I ask, does the Dread exchange for this added randomness? Is it cheaper than a Marine Dread? Does it carry weapons a Marine Dread can't? What's the trade off? I don't have access to the codex like some do (lucky!). I have only flipped through a store's copy for like a few minutes.

The second thing from the negative response camp that I have to agree with is the whole affair with summoned lesser daemons. The one stat line from them all is rather odd....and feels like lazy rules writing.

So, until I've read the codex fully myself and seen/played some games...I'm on the fence. I like some of the stuff I'm hearing, and I dislike two things so far.

grizzly ruin
31-08-2007, 18:04
Go look at the poll (http://warseer.com/forums/40k-general-discussion/100637-your-views-on-the-new-chaos-codez.html): currently running 33 for, 6 against and 4 not bothered (one of which was me).

Any poll taken on Warseer is guaranteed to end up like that.

I also think the poll is too black and white, it doesn't allow for a complicated opinion.

I like a lot of the codex.

I totally hate several aspects which run the gamut from unit rules, artwork and focus on weeping emo marines.

Thre are a couple of cool new renegade schemes, but a lot of the names are like something a 13 year old thought up.

Deathmongers
Death Shadows
Knights of Blood
Brotherhood of Darkness

There are some cool ones in there. The ones that don't sound like they are trying to be TEH EVIL!!

The Sanctified
The Reborn
Apostles of Minthras

lord_blackfang
31-08-2007, 18:08
What, may I ask, does the Dread exchange for this added randomness? Is it cheaper than a Marine Dread? Does it carry weapons a Marine Dread can't? What's the trade off?

All configurations are the same cost or cheaper than the SM/DA/BA equivalent, it has a unique option (CCW+Missile) plus it has an extra attack.

Captain Micha
31-08-2007, 18:09
well if Darkness was the name of the world they were from it wouldn't be so bad.. :D

I can't believe those others though are actual names.... *bangs head on desk* Then again... Ultramarines.... -THAT- is a bad name.

You can argue that it's so bad and cheesy sounding that it's cool and you would be sort of right... sort of.... but every time I hear that name I think of a space marine doing the captain morgan pose, with a big blue cape flowing out around him with the stupid super hero smug look goin on.

honestly could we have expected better names from a company that made "Ultramarines"?

Ddraiglais
31-08-2007, 18:11
However, CSM *are* basically just "SM with spikes". That's why basic CSM have +1A for BP&CCW at all times. That's why CSM can take Marks and join Cults that make themselves even spikier. And it's why the have to take 10 guys to get a Heavy weapon in the basic squad. CSM are being designed so they can't play shooty MSU like SM. GW is saying loud and clear: if you want to be spiky, you play Chaos SM, and if you want to be MSU shooty, play Loyalist SM.

For starters you *can* use Daemons - you just don't want to. But the option is there, and it's a fair one.

There is nothing in the new CSM Codex that prevents you from fulfilling your three criteria. It just means you don't get your stupid rules for free.

In WFB, leading Frenzied troops around by the nose is pretty common. However 40k is designed to be less stupid that way, with more control over one's forces.

Three Dreads aren't totally unreasonable. While they *could* Fire Frenzy every a lot, it's a rare game that they would. You're still talking about something that only occurs 1/6 of the time.

Finally, *I* am a Chaos player, and I like the Codex. Most polls show the vast majority of players like the Codex.

What about daemons? What about variation? I'm not even talking about the loss of specific types of daemons because GW wants to do daemonworlds. I'm talking about possessed who are suppose to be HTH animals, but may or may not be depending on what you roll. I'm talking about mutations and possessions for vehicles. How about more than five daemon weapons (four of which won't fit a lot of armies because they have the wrong mark? Taking ten guys to get a HW makes absolutely no sense. There isn't order in Chaos armies. Their squads wouldn't all be the same number. Even if Chaos was more organized, the Codex Astartes was written AFTER they left. Taking away shooty stuff flies in the face of at least the Iron Warriors. I'm sure small squads of Alpha Legion kitted out to handle most tasks would make sense fluff wise. Chaos is not Khorne. Khorne is not Khorne for that matter. There was a time when Khorne had the best shooting units in the game (in Epic at least).

If I can, then why does anyone read any fluff that GW puts out? Daemons were not part of my forces. I'm not even going to go into how worthless the rules for generic daemons are. I may "choose" to not use daemons, but it was GW who originally made that decision. The bottom line is that even if generic daemons were priced right or were a bit better, I wouldn't be able to use them because they don't fit the theme.

Did you read my criteria? Let's go down the list. Generic greater daemons and regular daemons don't fit the them. Possessed, dreads, and oblits are not useful to me on the table. Havocs will sadly get pushed out as well since I lose my 4th HS choice. I doubt the DP will fit the theme anymore. That leaves me with a lord and/or a sorc, three squads of termies, maybe LR transport, some CSM troops, maybe a squad of bezerkers or plague marines, a couple of vindis, and maybe a pred. How boring is that? I've lost my all time favorite model (for both looks and effectiveness) in the basilisk.

I don't play fantasy so I'll take your word for it.

In a three turn game, that's how often? What if the game goes six turns? With three dreads, it's almost certain.

If you read my whole post, I did say that the majority of players are at least o.k. with the new dex. I highly doubt that it's a "vast" majority though.

If GW decides to revisit the legions, then I will start adding to my IW army again. Until then (or the next codex), I will just play Legio Mortis in Apocalypse or traitor guard.

Vineas
31-08-2007, 18:16
Grizzly,

I'm defending the new codex and I *DO* play Chaos, I *DO* have a copy of the dex and I have played Chaos since *2nd* (well, with a 3 year break or so when that 3.5 book not worthy of wiping my ass with came out) so don't blanket people in like that. That to me just seems like flame bait.

Warp Zero,

The base cost of a dread went up but the ML is free and with dreads no longer getting havoc launchers (and it sounds like quite a few people did put havocs on dreads) they are a little bit cheaper. 105pts for Chaos dread with TL HB and ML, I think even the TL Lascannon went down but I don't have the old 'dex next to me so I can't be 100% positive.

I mentioned my reasons for liking it and disliking it so I won't repeat them.

Oh, and I love how people keep saying DW's *kill* the Lord 1/3rd the time. They don't kill him, they wound him and as the lord *DOES* have an Inv. save that he can still take (the rules say no armor save, doesn't say NO save period) it's actually less than 1/3rd that he is gonna cut his finger on his blade.

grizzly ruin
31-08-2007, 18:22
I've been trying to follow this thread for a while now. Trying to get a sense of how people are feeling about the new Codex. For the most part, what I've heard isn't fine with me. Possessed having random abilities doesn't bother me. I think the key to using Possessed is assigning them a role without the random table. Look at their abilities and assign them a plan.

Then their role is "slaughter guardsman or barely make out in combat vs. MEQs while hoping for rending or power weapons."



But....talking about the Dread....yeah, I'll agree with you on that one. Its annoying to think at any moment something horribly could go wrong like "friendly fire" from something so well armed. Yes, tactically....a Chaos player can do things to minimalize such an event, but I think most people are feeling that its an added level game depth/decision making toward the annoying rather than the cool.

What, may I ask, does the Dread exchange for this added randomness? Is it cheaper than a Marine Dread? Does it carry weapons a Marine Dread can't? What's the trade off?

The shooting weapon upgrades are 20~25 points cheaper.

It gets an extra basic attack on it's profile.

grizzly ruin
31-08-2007, 18:31
honestly could we have expected better names from a company that made "Ultramarines"?

We should because they came up with the name "ultramarines" during a time when that probably sound extremely cool.

There was a time the word "ray gun" sounded outlandish and amazing.

However in 2007 I expect a bit more than "Skyrar's Dark Wolves".

SKYRAAWWR!

:cries:


Grizzly,

I'm defending the new codex and I *DO* play Chaos, I *DO* have a copy of the dex and I have played Chaos since *2nd* (well, with a 3 year break or so when that 3.5 book not worthy of wiping my ass with came out) so don't blanket people in like that.

I said the majority, you, blackfang, foehammer, occulto and a couple of others are not in the majority because you guys actually have opinions that are well thought, worth hearing and worth arguing against.




Oh, and I love how people keep saying DW's *kill* the Lord 1/3rd the time. They don't kill him, they wound him and as the lord *DOES* have an Inv. save that he can still take (the rules say no armor save, doesn't say NO save period) it's actually less than 1/3rd that he is gonna cut his finger on his blade.

When a T4 Khornate Chaos Lord stands around in combat struggling with his inner spawn with a 5+ invulnerable save to protect him. He will be dead.

Vineas
31-08-2007, 18:42
He's only I5 so against anything lower, yeah he MIGHT die while his weapon tries to go all WWE on him but against anything of the same init, if standing around is going to kill him he is going to die anyway, he just won't get his licks in before he does.....boo hoo.

I hear people say how uber badass Abby is now but obviously those that do have missed the part where Abby has to worry about mastery as much as a normal Lord who IS a hell of a lot cheaper. I'd rather 150 pt lord dies than a 2**pt abbadon to his own weapon.

sebster
31-08-2007, 18:42
I love how the fanboys keep attacking the last codex or anyone who dislikes this new dex. The last codex wasn't perfect. I don't think anyone is saying that. I think that most of us who dislike the new codex are saying that GW could have fixed the last codex without butchering it. They could have toned down some things, upped the cost on others, and even thrown out a rule or two. There were some cool things in there that could have been fun with some tweaking. I'm sorry if I happen to ask for some work from a company that I spend a ton of money on.

Don't tell us off for 'attacking' you in the same sentence you're calling us fanboys. The irony just ate a small planet.

The changes to the new codex were about making the armies people brought to the table fun armies to play with and against. Sure, there's less options and that means less fun tinkering with one special rule or another. Sure, there's no more variant lists.

But what you're left with is a codex with a wide variety of units capable of being used in various roles on the tabletop. I'm sure there'll end up being a different set of one-trick pony armies like the old cult lists, but they won't be anywhere near as obvious or boring to have in a game.

I didn't really care about the power level in the old codex, I cared how boring the armies it created were.

grizzly ruin
31-08-2007, 18:51
I hear people say how uber badass Abby is now but obviously those that do have missed the part where Abby has to worry about mastery as much as a normal Lord who IS a hell of a lot cheaper. I'd rather 150 pt lord dies than a 275pt abbadon to his own weapon.

While I also think Abaddon is too expensive for anything short of apocalypse, he also has a 4+ invulnerable save (to protect him from enemy attacks, and to better make his invulnerable vs. the mastery roll) and effective T5 because he is immune to instant death (to protect him should he fail mastery).

He also doesn't have the extra risk of the Khornate Daemonweapon, and at S8 (higher than DPs & Greater Daemons against non-vehicles) with rerolls to wound, he is a wrecking ball.

Vineas
31-08-2007, 18:53
But, but, but.....3.5 gave us variety. I mean the current codex only gives us ONE broken army list, not the multitude that the 3.5 'dex gave us. Life is soooooooo unfair. *stomps foot*

Yeah, that's hilarious. Attacking "fanboys" for attacking people who hate the codex. Wow, never before has so much irony come from one source in all of the world. :rolleyes:


While I also think Abaddon is too expensive for anything short of apocalypse, he also has a 4+ invulnerable save (to protect him from enemy attacks, and to better make his invulnerable vs. the mastery roll) and effective T5 because he is immune to instant death (to protect him should he fail mastery).

He also doesn't have the extra risk of the Khornate Daemonweapon, and at S8 (higher than DPs & Greater Daemons against non-vehicles) with rerolls to wound, he is a wrecking ball.

Yeah, while the Khornate one does increase your chance, the potential to unleash upwards of 18 power weapon attacks at S5 and I5 (with jugger mount) far outweighs the downside of having to fight with my big, sharp pokey weapon for a turn.

DhaosAndy
31-08-2007, 19:09
Vineas: "Oh, and I love how people keep saying DW's *kill* the Lord 1/3rd the time. They don't kill him, they wound him and as the lord *DOES* have an Inv. save that he can still take (the rules say no armor save, doesn't say NO save period) it's actually less than 1/3rd that he is gonna cut his finger on his blade."

So in any given game the lord will give up half his points, if you're lucky, wait, hold the celebration, that assumes the unit he's fighting and can't attack, can't take the other 2/3, oh dear....:rolleyes:

dcikgyurt
31-08-2007, 19:23
I love how the fanboys keep attacking the last codex or anyone who dislikes this new dex. The last codex wasn't perfect. I don't think anyone is saying that. I think that most of us who dislike the new codex are saying that GW could have fixed the last codex without butchering it. They could have toned down some things, upped the cost on others, and even thrown out a rule or two. There were some cool things in there that could have been fun with some tweaking. I'm sorry if I happen to ask for some work from a company that I spend a ton of money on.

I did like the current 'dex, but it just so happens that it was tactically inflexible. To have a competent army list you HAD to take the uber-killing-machine-of-death HQ option, otherwise you wouldn't have a high enough Init to go up against a CC army such as 'nids, and you would never be able to field a gun line as competent as a marine, tau or eldar equivalent (due to lack of decent tech).

The new codex allows for a more tactically flexible army. You can just field CSM and a cheap lord and still have a good all-round army list that can take on all comers.

I'm not attacking you for your opinion, I've discussed this codex with many people offline and the only one I've heard complain was Dhaosandy. He put forward some good arguments, but they are the same tired old arguments that everybody keeps bringing up. That said however, the arguments for the codex are all recycled and worn out as well. I think this topic has been done to death. We're going round in circles which is leading to flaming and flame baiting. Lets just leave it and move on. :D

grizzly ruin
31-08-2007, 19:39
I did like the current 'dex, but it just so happens that it was tactically inflexible. To have a competent army list you HAD to take the uber-killing-machine-of-death HQ option, otherwise you wouldn't have a high enough Init to go up against a CC army such as 'nids, and you would never be able to field a gun line as competent as a marine, tau or eldar equivalent (due to lack of decent tech).

:eek:

Tactically inflexible?

Can't field a gunline?

I'm sorry we were playing totally different codices.

DhaosAndy
31-08-2007, 19:48
@ dcikgyurt: I think your right, it has been done to death;)

That said killing some high and mighty hive tyrant/sm chapter master/wraithlord/pheonix lord/etc with an uber HQ (non monstrous) is so much more fun than shooting 'em with lascannons. :)

Are you reading the same codex as me and grizzly, cause the chaos gun line took a huge nerf in this codex. Shrugs.

dcikgyurt
31-08-2007, 19:53
A gunline based on generic CSM has been nerfed, but if you take Thousand sons and small noise marine squads you can field a better gunline than before. Add in a couple of preds for tank-busting and it should work a little better than the previous codex. Not as good as a gunline based on one of the armies previously mentioned, but better nonetheless.

Zerosoul
01-09-2007, 03:38
What you mean like:
random rolls for posessed
random rolls for daemon weapons that kill their owners 1/3rd of the time and cost as much as 2 raptors
Dreads that were balanced being changed to shoot their own guys and get themselves killed
Effective Daemons being totally removed for deepstriking scouts that are overpriced for their abilities
spawn who have a random rolls all over the place
Emphasis on Emo Renegades over the Legions

Would the CHAOS = RANDOM DICE ROLLS be apart of that...


Yes, exactly like that. In order -

Random rolls for Possessed isn't bad. I've said this a thousand times. I may wish they weren't random, or that you had some method of controlling the randomness, but I would be willing to bet you haven't actually tried them on the battlefield.

Khornate daemon weapons exemplify the Chaos codex. Risk versus reward. You're taking a huge risk - a 1 in 3 chance of taking a would(that's saveable thanks to the 5+ invulnerable, of course) and not being able to attack for a round in exchange for the reward of being essentially guaranteed to sweep your kill zone. Randomness is not bad unless you're entirely risk-adverse.

Dreads have an easy way to get around the 1-in-6 chance of shooting their own guys(smoke launchers, not, you know, keeping your own guys super close to them) in exchange for being either comparably priced or cheaper than their loyalist counterparts.

Daemons are placeholders until an entire codex dedicated to them. So, waaaaaah.

After reading the codex, it's fairly clear that Spawn are not really intended to be used as standalone units. They're mostly there for Gift of Chaos fodder, in which case they are quite good against GEqs and still capable of putting the hurt on Marines as necessary.

Calling things emo as an insult is so twelfth grade, and silly to boot. I don't know about you, but my codex is filled with special characters from the Legion and only one Renegade special character. And the sample army is, y'know, Black Legion. Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.



Why are you willing to defend one set of restrictive views of fluff backed up by rules that end up with cartoonish caricatures of the army over another?

That's funny - not one thing you mentioned was fluff. It was all rules. Which is fine with me, but you could at least to pretend to acknowledge my point.

The Legions were cartoons. Silly, stupid cartoons, just like the Craftworlds were silly, stupid cartoons in that codex. I say this as a former Night Lords player. Well, gee - Khorne likes bloodshed. Clearly this means "no use of ranged weapons whatsoever" and running around like a broken toy after a skimmer you can't hurt, because Khorne is the preeminent god in the universe mostly because he's still stuck back in Warhammer Fantasy(and despite the old fluff with Berzerkers using heavy weapons and such). Clearly, a Space Marine Legion could survive ten thousand years by running face-first into a meat grinder every single engagement. Well, gee - Iron Warriors like siege warfare. Clearly this means they should get two unique vehicles and extra choices from the best section of the codex, AND restrictions lifted on by FAR the best Elites choice. Because they like guns and stuff. Ignore the fluff where they use Berzerkers through the breach, because Berzerkers don't like guns and stuff and Iron Warriors really like guns and stuff. And Alpha Legion gets practically free Infiltrate, because they like to sneak, you know? Being sneaky guys who sneak a lot it only makes sense that they like to sneak(hush up, Night Lords players. You got extra choices in the worst section of the codex and Night Vision - for free!) and are good at sneaking. Downsides? Oh, you can't take daemons and stuff. Oh, except you can, just, you know, your ultra-cheap meat shields that only you can take that have free Infiltrate have to summon them.

I could go on and on and on, but I won't. I think I've made my point. All the Legions are Space Marines, with all the tactical flexibility that entails, which is, frankly, quite a lot. You can now reflect that with your army choices, and you can come up with your own fluff. Want a Tzeentch sorcerer leading a band of Berzerkers? Come up with the fluff! How about some Death Guard chilling with Thousand Sons? Come up with the fluff!You're no longer stuck with OCD gods and frozen into somebody else's background. How is that anything but good?

grickherder
01-09-2007, 06:42
Emo Renegades LOL! More like emo traitor legions. Aww... the Emperor doesn't love me enough so I'm going to betray daddy. :D

Sovereign
01-09-2007, 08:24
no true cannon fodder units

And thus, you've spent 2 hundred points on CSMs for them to baby sit your dread.
Check your Codex - I believe there are 2 entries you missed: Chaos Space Marines and Lesser Daemons.

I have one Dread. He is armed with 2 DNCCWs. I will be taking HtH CSM anyways, so this is no additional cost to me, nor are his twin Bolters any great risk for me to worry about.

Sovereign
01-09-2007, 08:48
What about daemons?

I'm talking about possessed who are suppose to be HTH animals, but may or may not be depending on what you roll.

I'm talking about mutations and possessions for vehicles.

How about more than five daemon weapons (four of which won't fit a lot of armies because they have the wrong mark?

Taking ten guys to get a HW makes absolutely no sense.

Their squads wouldn't all be the same number. Even if Chaos was more organized, the Codex Astartes was written AFTER they left.

Taking away shooty stuff flies in the face of at least the Iron Warriors.

The bottom line is that even if generic daemons were priced right or were a bit better, I wouldn't be able to use them because they don't fit the theme.

Did you read my criteria? That leaves me with a lord and/or a sorc, three squads of termies, maybe LR transport, some CSM troops, maybe a squad of bezerkers or plague marines, a couple of vindis, and maybe a pred.

I've lost my all time favorite model (for both looks and effectiveness) in the basilisk.

In a three turn game, that's how often? What if the game goes six turns? With three dreads, it's almost certain.

If you read my whole post, I did say that the majority of players are at least o.k. with the new dex. I highly doubt that it's a "vast" majority though.

If GW decides to revisit the legions, then I will start adding to my IW army again. Until then (or the next codex), I will just play Legio Mortis in Apocalypse or traitor guard.
What about Daemons? They're fine for what they are.

Possessed are very likely to be HtH animals. You just need to take 2 or 3 squads so they the support and complement each other.

IIRC, the Defiler is Possessed.

5 Daemon Weapons (base and 1 for each Power) is plenty enough.

Noise Marines can take their Heavy with less than 10 guys.

But Taking 10 guys to get the Heavy makes perfect sense because Chaos started out as following a structure that had things in common with what became the Codex Astartes.

Nothing says IW can't take shooty stuff. Just that IW don't get ridiculous extra amounts fo shooty stuff. So now IW are balanced. This is good.

If they don't fit your theme, that's your problem, not the Codex problem.

If your criteria limit you to that list, I don't see any problem - it is a very playable army. In my case, my (model-based) Criteria "limit" me, but my list will be totally playable, so it's no problem for me, either.

So you lost a Bassie. Big deal. That's how it goes. Start an IG army.

If the game goes 6 turns with 3 Dreads, and they NEVER reach combat, then they'll probably Frenzy 3 times. The first time, probably they shoot my guys. The second time, they probably shoot the opponent. The third time NEVER happens, because a shooty Dread would have been destroyed by then. :P

The current poll is 65-70% of people liking the Codex. The remaining 30-35% are roughly evenly split between not caring and not liking. So the ratio is roughly 4 to 1 liking vs not liking. That's a very sizable majority.

If you are playing Apocalypse, I don't think there is any problem with you playing your old IW. But really, you should also be fielding Berzerkers...

Vaktathi
01-09-2007, 09:03
The current poll is 65-70% of people liking the Codex. The remaining 30-35% are roughly evenly split between not caring and not liking. So the ratio is roughly 4 to 1 liking vs not liking. That's a very sizable majority.


Thats not exactly something that should be taken too seriously, most of those are probably not even Chaos players I'd venture. among Chaos players I'd say you are going to see closer to a 50/50.

that said, there is alot to like and alot to dislike about the new codex, it all depends on what the changes mean to your army. Personally, I lose my 4th predator and oblits (I think I'm going to end up keeping my preds over the oblits), but ALOT of terminators. overall it may be about the same, but it loses ALOT (I mean...alot) of shooty in exchange for some more killy. I'm sad to see the legion rules go, but I like cheap raptors and termi's :D that goes a long way.

silashand
01-09-2007, 09:03
You're no longer stuck with OCD gods and frozen into somebody else's background. How is that anything but good?

Except that I can no longer play Thousand Sons at all. And don't tell me to fill up my troop choices with the only cult unit in the list. That's a cop out and you know it. When the only true legion represented in the list is BL there's something wrong IMO. You can play your home-grown renegades all you want. Just don't sit on your high horse saying we all have to do so. I don't like the focus on renegades and never have. IMO if that's what you wanted, then the SM codex was fine for it. Saying I should quit crying because I can't field the army *I* want is no better than me saying the same thing to you because *you* didn't want to use the marine dex in the first place.

Cheers, Gary

Ronin_eX
01-09-2007, 09:26
Thats not exactly something that should be taken too seriously, most of those are probably not even Chaos players I'd venture. among Chaos players I'd say you are going to see closer to a 50/50.

I keep hearing this but I don't see more accurate polls getting made. Back when the DA codex came out numerous polls were taken. The first were the usual like/dislike kind and in the end it ended up being a resounding "like" for the DA codex. People then went on to say "well those people are all xenos players, not DA players," so lo more polls came in which players specified whether they were DA or not and what their stance was. Again it came up as a majority of DA players liking the codex.

What seems to be the case again is that a few loud detractors seem to think that their opinion must be the majority because it seems so clear and logical too them. This has been the case with each new codex release since C: Eldar (and even before, there are always some who dislike a codex). So before making an unsubstantiated claim that "those results are skewed by people who don't know what WE have to go through" one should prove the point that it is actually the way they say it is. As it is that poll is showing a majority liking the codex, if you want to prove the claim that it is because they are reveling in the downfall of the chaos players and are not, themselves, chaos players then make a poll and use the results to prove (or disprove) your point. Any other statement is just sour grapes and doesn't actually make the argument to the contrary any less valid.

You can't please all of the people all of the time but you can please most of the people most of the time. Just do as the majority of DA and Eldar players have done and actually play with the list before saying it sucks. I've been using the DA codex since the day it came out and despite early detractors it seems that the list was good overall and was very workable. The Chaos list will likely be in the same boat, so try it before casting down your final opinion.

Vaktathi
01-09-2007, 09:30
I keep hearing this but I don't see more accurate polls getting made. Back when the DA codex came out numerous polls were taken. The first were the usual like/dislike kind and in the end it ended up being a resounding "like" for the DA codex. People then went on to say "well those people are all xenos players, not DA players," so lo more polls came in which players specified whether they were DA or not and what their stance was. Again it came up as a majority of DA players liking the codex.

What seems to be the case again is that a few loud detractors seem to think that their opinion must be the majority because it seems so clear and logical too them. This has been the case with each new codex release since C: Eldar (and even before, there are always some who dislike a codex). So before making an unsubstantiated claim that "those results are skewed by people who don't know what WE have to go through" one should prove the point that it is actually the way they say it is. As it is that poll is showing a majority liking the codex, if you want to prove the claim that it is because they are reveling in the downfall of the chaos players and are not, themselves, chaos players then make a poll and use the results to prove (or disprove) your point. Any other statement is just sour grapes and doesn't actually make the argument to the contrary any less valid.



Try getting an accurate scientific poll of Chaos players on an online web forum, it wont happen. This is afterall "teh intarwebs".

If you label the poll "chaos players only" there will still be people who will vote even if they dont play chaos, there are people who may have multiple accounts and may vote multiple times. You will also probably get tons of people who have not read the codex yet as it has not been officially released yet.

My earlier post was not to complain and gripe as you seem to have taken it, it was to point out that internet web polls are not exactly scientificly accurate measures.

pretty much every Chaos player I have talked to in person (save the a friend who wants to play thousand sons) has had a more negative reaction than positive, and I seem to get that reaction from alot of the chaos players here. I was disappointed with it at first as well, but I'm going to go overboard on terminators because I can, so now I'm over it. I havent said the list "is teh suck" but it is a rather huge departure from the previous codex, so there will doubtless be troubled players. I think I'll do fine with it.

Ddraiglais
01-09-2007, 10:13
What about Daemons? They're fine for what they are.

Possessed are very likely to be HtH animals. You just need to take 2 or 3 squads so they the support and complement each other.

IIRC, the Defiler is Possessed.

5 Daemon Weapons (base and 1 for each Power) is plenty enough.

Noise Marines can take their Heavy with less than 10 guys.

But Taking 10 guys to get the Heavy makes perfect sense because Chaos started out as following a structure that had things in common with what became the Codex Astartes.

Nothing says IW can't take shooty stuff. Just that IW don't get ridiculous extra amounts fo shooty stuff. So now IW are balanced. This is good.

If they don't fit your theme, that's your problem, not the Codex problem.

If your criteria limit you to that list, I don't see any problem - it is a very playable army. In my case, my (model-based) Criteria "limit" me, but my list will be totally playable, so it's no problem for me, either.

So you lost a Bassie. Big deal. That's how it goes. Start an IG army.

If the game goes 6 turns with 3 Dreads, and they NEVER reach combat, then they'll probably Frenzy 3 times. The first time, probably they shoot my guys. The second time, they probably shoot the opponent. The third time NEVER happens, because a shooty Dread would have been destroyed by then. :P

The current poll is 65-70% of people liking the Codex. The remaining 30-35% are roughly evenly split between not caring and not liking. So the ratio is roughly 4 to 1 liking vs not liking. That's a very sizable majority.

If you are playing Apocalypse, I don't think there is any problem with you playing your old IW. But really, you should also be fielding Berzerkers...

I don't really think daemons are all that great. Besides, fluff says that I wouldn't use them. I could always try possessed robots/machines or something, but why would I go through the trouble of converting something like that for less than stellar units?

2 or 3 squads would cut into termies. Termies are reliable. You know what you are getting. There really isn't any decision making in the elites section any more. The only combination I can see is termies, more termies, and another squad of termies.

Noise marines don't fit IW. Maybe I could model up something and call those weapons sonic weapons for rules purposes. I just have to convince myself that I didn't really take the mark of Slaanesh.

I don't see it that way. It was pre Heresy. They have been in the EoT for ten thousand years. Not to mention attrition in squads over that time.

They could have found better ways to balance IW and other abused lists. Maybe you would have to pay more for a bassie. Maybe that 4th HS slot could have cost 150% in points. They could have worked with the last codex instead of just trashing it.

It is my problem. It's also a problem with the codex. One codex tells me that my entire army should be a certain way. The next codex tells me that my army can't look even remotely like it did. That's poor developement on GW's part.

It's a very playable list. I could probably win a ton with it. However, I would rather lose with a fun list than win with that list. It is bland and flavorless to me.

I have traitor guard.

But they are still shooting your guys. I don't see how that wouldn't bother someone.

Others have pointed out the validity of a poll in an online forum. I'd also like to see how many of the positive reactions came from non-Chaos players. I'm sure most non-Chaos players are overjoyed at this new codex.

I like larger games anyway. Apocalypse sounds like it was custom made for me. In Apocalypse I can play all three of my armies like I designed them to be played. Here you and I are totally in agreement. Bezerkers are one fluffy bonus the new dex gives back to IW. I would even add squads of vets with bionics (plaguemarines) could find their way into IW armieis.

I still don't like the new dex. I doubt I ever will. As much as I love the concept of Apocalypse, I don't like feeling forced into playing it almost exclusively. On the bright side, my Legio Mortis army may actually get finished sometime this decade.

Hellebore
01-09-2007, 10:24
Except that I can no longer play Thousand Sons at all. And don't tell me to fill up my troop choices with the only cult unit in the list. That's a cop out and you know it. When the only true legion represented in the list is BL there's something wrong IMO. You can play your home-grown renegades all you want. Just don't sit on your high horse saying we all have to do so. I don't like the focus on renegades and never have. IMO if that's what you wanted, then the SM codex was fine for it. Saying I should quit crying because I can't field the army *I* want is no better than me saying the same thing to you because *you* didn't want to use the marine dex in the first place.

Cheers, Gary

How is it a cop out? In the old codex you could only have chaos marine squads with the mark of Tzeentch, possessed, chosen, and terminators.

As troops you could only have chaos marines, which is exactly what the thousand sons in the new codex ARE. You can now take units of bikes with the mark of tzeentch as well as raptors, or not.

Either way, if you limit yourself to taking terminators, chosen, possessed, and Thousand sons then you are taking an army that is 90% identical to the original.

How is that a cop out?

Is it simply that you don't get supaspecial rules for every single unit?

Hellebore

Vineas
01-09-2007, 10:41
So let me get this straight. Chaos is a combination of the 9 Legions, of roving bands of renegades who aren't part of any particular legion but have been around as long as the "big 9" (which according to fluff a few of the pre-heresy legions DID end up breaking up into), new legions that just recently came to the "other" side and Daemonic Legions.....but.....only the big 9 should be in the codex and renegades should be represented by C: SM.

That's very unfair to say "people who want to play a renegade force has to use C:SM since it best represents recent renegades". I don't want to play a renegade warband turned traitor 100 years ago, I want to play one that came into being 10,000 years ago and so therefore I have just as much right to have my Chaos army represented in the new Codex as you do.

I think YOU need to climb down off YOUR high horse. I'm tired of cramping my neck to look up at your high and mighty self.

WLBjork
01-09-2007, 10:52
If you label the poll "chaos players only" there will still be people who will vote even if they dont play chaos, there are people who may have multiple accounts and may vote multiple times. You will also probably get tons of people who have not read the codex yet as it has not been officially released yet.

Welcome to "Creating Polls 101" ;)

In this case you need to do the following:

Wait at least 2 months to allow the codex to become available and for a few people to aquire a copy.

Then post up a poll with the following options:

Play Chaos, like the codex
Play Chaos, hate the codex
Play Chaos, not bothered about codex
Don't play Chaos, like the codex
Don't play Chaos, hate the codex
Don't play Chaos, not bothered about codex


Simple, innit?

sebster
01-09-2007, 11:01
What, may I ask, does the Dread exchange for this added randomness? Is it cheaper than a Marine Dread? Does it carry weapons a Marine Dread can't? What's the trade off? I don't have access to the codex like some do (lucky!). I have only flipped through a store's copy for like a few minutes.

It has an extra attack and is 15 points cheaper than the marine version. It can also take another dreadnought CCW for 10 points, which the marine version can't do.


The second thing from the negative response camp that I have to agree with is the whole affair with summoned lesser daemons. The one stat line from them all is rather odd....and feels like lazy rules writing.

They're getting their own codex. Giving them a set of rules in this codex before and then another set in the upcoming Codex: Daemon World would have been down right stupid.


So, until I've read the codex fully myself and seen/played some games...I'm on the fence. I like some of the stuff I'm hearing, and I dislike two things so far.

Absolutely, just see the codex in action. It really, really doesn't matter what quibbles and dramas people on the internet have, what matters is how much fun the lists produced with the new codex are to have in a game.

Wintermute
01-09-2007, 12:11
Tthere are people who may have multiple accounts and may vote multiple times.

May I remind you all Clone Accounts are not allowed on WarSeer and will be banned if detected.

Wintermute
The WarSeer Inquisition

grizzly ruin
01-09-2007, 15:23
but I would be willing to bet you haven't actually tried them on the battlefield.

A little preface.

My assertion is that the posessed are (supposed to be):
An elite melee assault unit, which is to say they should be really good at killing things.

(this does not include GEQs as my basic CSMs can slaughter them wholesale, and for a hell of a lot cheaper, along with performing several other roles all at once)

Because they are most certainly not:
A shooty unit
A tarpit unit/cannon fodder unit (too expensive)

Only two upgrades, rending and powerweapons, help them fulfill their role.

The rest of the upgrades, while interesting, do not help them to perform their basic function - killing things.


Now as for not using them yet, it's not as if the posessed are some fantastic new unit no one has ever seen before.

1. I found the base posessed without upgrades in the previous codex (when they actually had at least a token ranged attack and ACs who could take upgrades) were a point or two overpriced.

2. Rending was probably the most effective of all of their upgrade choices, but as I said - I found them too expensive to use with or without rending. And enemies saw them as a nice VP gift that had to make it up the field in a Rhino.

3. Now we have the same unit, except they are even more expensive at base.
3.5 Codex posessed and new codex posessed have the same statline, barring random rolls vs. being able to purchase the ability you want for the unit.

So now we have the same unit, that was overpriced before except they:

Have no reliable method of performing their primary role
Are even more expensive than they were
Have even lost their token shooting attack
Need a transport even though some of their abilities may make spending the points on it redundant

And lastly, as if all of that weren't enough, I hated the random abilities table in the first 3rd ed codex and I hate random abilities tables in general.




Khornate daemon weapons exemplify the Chaos codex. Risk versus reward. You're taking a huge risk - a 1 in 3 chance of taking a would(that's saveable thanks to the 5+ invulnerable, of course) and not being able to attack for a round in exchange for the reward of being essentially guaranteed to sweep your kill zone. Randomness is not bad unless you're entirely risk-adverse.

Not in my opinion.

In my opinion random rules represent some of the worst pigeonholing of an army, by using the basest version of the fluff to turn the army list into a cartoonish chariacture of what it should be. (to paraphrase you, which I thought was apt when you posted it)



Dreads have an easy way to get around the 1-in-6 chance of shooting their own guys(smoke launchers, not, you know, keeping your own guys super close to them) in exchange for being either comparably priced or cheaper than their loyalist counterparts.

I'd rather have them cost the same and be able to function properly.

I don't need 20 points that badly.



Daemons are placeholders until an entire codex dedicated to them. So, waaaaaah.

If they can not be used with Chaos Marines, it has no bearing on this codex.

It's like saying, don't worry your renegade marines have given up their assault cannons but you can use them in Codex SM.

If they can be used with CSM dex, and they don't get turned into more slot machine units - then I'll be the first to apologize for my ranting.



After reading the codex, it's fairly clear that Spawn are not really intended to be used as standalone units. They're mostly there for Gift of Chaos fodder, in which case they are quite good against GEqs and still capable of putting the hurt on Marines as necessary.

In which case they then failed totally to improve CSM fast attack options.

It's pretty much Raptors, Raptors and more Raptors.

And while I love me some Raptors a bit of variety would be nice here. Another lost chance.



And the sample army is, y'know, Black Legion.

As it should be.




That's funny - not one thing you mentioned was fluff. It was all rules.



restrictive views of fluff backed up by rules

We've traded one page army lists for random rolls throughout the list.

Both are effectively the same. Half assed attempts of fluff as rules.

The restrictive view of Chaos?

Chaos = Random.



Check your Codex - I believe there are 2 entries you missed: Chaos Space Marines ...

Sovereign, I'm sorry if you honestly think of Chaos Space Marines as "cannon fodder" units then there really isn't much point in carrying on the discussion.

Sarevok
01-09-2007, 15:30
It has an extra attack and is 15 points cheaper than the marine version. It can also take another dreadnought CCW for 10 points, which the marine version can't do.


Bear in mind the Chaos dread cost is without a main weapon, while the Marine dreadnought cost includes the almighty ASScannon.

Zerosoul
01-09-2007, 17:03
Except that I can no longer play Thousand Sons at all. And don't tell me to fill up my troop choices with the only cult unit in the list. That's a cop out and you know it. When the only true legion represented in the list is BL there's something wrong IMO. You can play your home-grown renegades all you want. Just don't sit on your high horse saying we all have to do so. I don't like the focus on renegades and never have. IMO if that's what you wanted, then the SM codex was fine for it. Saying I should quit crying because I can't field the army *I* want is no better than me saying the same thing to you because *you* didn't want to use the marine dex in the first place.

Cheers, Gary

How on Earth is that a copout? You have access to MORE things marked by Tzeentch than you did before. And, yes - you can, indeed, play Thousand Sons squads as your troops, which is exactly the same as what you were doing before. Now you have access to everything in the codex bar Obliterators if you want to be strict. You're better off than you were before. Should the Legions have their own dexes? Sure. But to say you can't play your Thousand Sons anymore is sort of ridiculous.


A little preface.

My assertion is that the posessed are (supposed to be):
An elite melee assault unit, which is to say they should be really good at killing things.

(this does not include GEQs as my basic CSMs can slaughter them wholesale, and for a hell of a lot cheaper, along with performing several other roles all at once)

Because they are most certainly not:
A shooty unit
A tarpit unit/cannon fodder unit (too expensive)

Only two upgrades, rending and powerweapons, help them fulfill their role.

The rest of the upgrades, while interesting, do not help them to perform their basic function - killing things.

Oh, come on. You're smarter than that.

Yes. Possessed are, indeed, elite close combat units. You really need to get out of the mindset "they're only awesome if they have power weapons!" for a CC unit. That's not the way things are anymore. Possessed are intended to be resilient shock troops - just like the fluff, imagine that. You can generally rely on them to survive a mad dash across the board to pin things down. And to say that the rest of the upgrades don't help is just dumb, honestly. Fleet gets you into CC faster. Feel No Pain helps you survive longer if you're there, or makes you horrendously resilient(ask my Death Company) against shooting, which is going to be the most pain for Possessed. Furious Charge absolutely makes you better in CC, and I find it mindboggling that you say it doesn't help.

Possessed are not Terminators. They do not inflict casualties through power weapons. They inflict casualties through weight of wounds. It never ceases to amaze me - according to Warseer a 3+ armor save is practically invulnerable, and yet wounding Marines on 3s is nothing special. Some people's children. The further we get away from the "must have power weapons to matter in CC" mindset the better.



Now as for not using them yet, it's not as if the posessed are some fantastic new unit no one has ever seen before.

But they are. The only thing they have in common with old Possessed is an invulnerable save and S5. The Daemonkin table fundamentally changes how they're played. To say, "Oh, I know how to play them without even trying" is like saying that you can play SoBs because you know how to play Marines.

Besides, lack of playtesting is what people get on GW for. Isn't it a lack of playtesting to rush to judgment without even trying the unit?


3. Now we have the same unit, except they are even more expensive at base.

And can take an Icon, which is huge. Every Icon is a massive upgrade for the Possesseed.


And lastly, as if all of that weren't enough, I hated the random abilities table in the first 3rd ed codex and I hate random abilities tables in general.

So, why not stop projecting your own issues onto the Possessed?


In my opinion random rules represent some of the worst pigeonholing of an army, by using the basest version of the fluff to turn the army list into a cartoonish chariacture of what it should be. (to paraphrase you, which I thought was apt when you posted it)

This is because you have a distaste for random rolls, as you said(playing a normal game must be TORTURE).

Look - in the fluff, some Chaos things vary in effectiveness from battle to battle, or even from moment to moment. How else should you represent that? Saying "Daemon weapons suck because sometimes you roll a 1" is like saying "Psychic powers suck because sometimes you roll boxcars". Yes, there will be times you roll boxcars and fail to get off that crucial Boc/GoC/Doom/FotD, just like there will be times where your Wraithlord fails his Wraithsight test or, yes, your Chaos Lord wiffs it and rolls a 1. This is the nature of risk versus reward, which is the philosophy the Chaos list is built on.




I'd rather have them cost the same and be able to function properly.

I don't need 20 points that badly.

Right, because it's all bad. Nothing good at all about blasting loyalists twice in the face with a plasma cannon or getting two Lascannon/Mussle Launcher shots, or getting Fleet.




If they can not be used with Chaos Marines, it has no bearing on this codex.

Yep. And if they can't, I'll be right next to you with the pitchforks. How about we wait until then before warming up the tar and readying the feathers?


In which case they then failed totally to improve CSM fast attack options.

It's pretty much Raptors, Raptors and more Raptors.

And while I love me some Raptors a bit of variety would be nice here. Another lost chance.

Yeah, because T6 bikers or a 2+ invulnerable save sucks. :rolleyes:




We've traded one page army lists for random rolls throughout the list.

Four. Four units are based on random rolls. Lords with Daemon Weapons, Spawn, Possessed, and Dreadnoughts. They're not throughout the list, and your obsession with no random tables is blinding you.


Both are effectively the same. Half assed attempts of fluff as rules.

No, they're actualizing fluff. Spawn ALWAYS had random movement. Dreadnoughts ALWAYS had the Fire Frenzy. Daemon Weapons were ALWAYS hit or miss. Now there are actual risks to using these things.


Chaos = Random.


And I can make a list with no random elements in it more than Slow and Purposeful oblits. What now?

de Selby
01-09-2007, 17:39
The thousand sons are not just 'a legion marked by tzeentch'. Specifically they were subject to the rubric of ahriman, which transformed all members of the legion who were not already sorcerors into power-armour automata filled with dry dust. Pretty compelling background. In the old list, IIRC a thousand sons army could have vehicles, rubric troops, rubric terminators, units of sorcerors, and four types of daemons. Now they have vehicles, rubric troops and two types of daemons. Bikers and the rest of the marked troops with an inv. save are not rubric troops or sorcerors and thus not thousand sons.

grizzly ruin
01-09-2007, 17:41
Oh, come on. You're smarter than that.

Yes. Possessed are, indeed, elite close combat units. You really need to get out of the mindset "they're only awesome if they have power weapons!" for a CC unit.

They don't all need powerweapons.

But their AC needs something to actually have the unit do some killing.

If they can only cut through a basic TAC squad 1/3rd of the time, then I have no need of them as the points I spent on them would be better off going into nearly double the amount of basic CSMs.




Possessed are intended to be resilient shock troops - just like the fluff, imagine that.

Start quoting me a bunch of fluff on the posessed that supports your view of what this unit should be vs. what my opinion of it should be.

Because I'm not seeing a fluff view anywhere in any of the past 3 codices that says they are what you think they are and not what I think they are.



Fleet gets you into CC faster. Feel No Pain helps you survive longer if you're there, or makes you horrendously resilient(ask my Death Company) against shooting, which is going to be the most pain for Possessed. Furious Charge absolutely makes you better in CC, and I find it mindboggling that you say it doesn't help.

None of those matter if they only barely make their points back against a basic TAC squad. Whose powerfist champ will be killing his points worth.

And your Death Company also have rending AND furious charge for the love of god - Oh yeah and they can take jump packs instead of riding in easy-to-pop Rhinos. Oh what else, they also actually have frag and krak grenades like an assault unit is supposed to - and then they are fearless on top of it all.


So they, can actually perform their basic function of being expensive hand to hand killers.




But they are. The only thing they have in common with old Possessed is an invulnerable save and S5. The Daemonkin table fundamentally changes how they're played.

Yeah because instead of allowing the player to choose how they are played, the dice choose for him.



To say, "Oh, I know how to play them without even trying" is like saying that you can play SoBs because you know how to play Marines.

That's ridiculous.




This is because you have a distaste for random rolls, as you said(playing a normal game must be TORTURE).


I hate random abilities tables

:eyebrows:



Look - in the fluff, some Chaos things vary in effectiveness from battle to battle, or even from moment to moment.

Again, with "the fluff".

Quote me the fluff.




Yep. And if they can't, I'll be right next to you with the pitchforks. How about we wait until then before warming up the tar and readying the feathers?

I already have the tar, the feathers and the pitchforks ready due to most of the other issues I have with the codex.




Yeah, because T4(6) bikers or a 2+ invulnerable save sucks. (edited for accuracy)

They're also in dispute (2+), require a FAQ and are expensive.

We also had them in the previous codex without the Icons.

And we still needed a new, solid edition to fast attack.




Four. Four units are based on random rolls. Lords with Daemon Weapons, Spawn, Possessed, and Dreadnoughts. They're not throughout the list, and your obsession with no random tables is blinding you.

My obsession is with bad rules.

As much as I don't like random tables, the 3.5 Dread Fire Frenzy was fine.

Vaktathi
01-09-2007, 18:01
May I remind you all Clone Accounts are not allowed on WarSeer and will be banned if detected.

Wintermute
The WarSeer Inquisition

Sorry, I wasnt advocating anything against the forum rules, just trying to explain reasons why polls on webforums can't exactly be relied upon as accurate. I mentioned that because it does happen on alot of other forums.

Wintermute
01-09-2007, 18:07
Sorry, I wasnt advocating anything against the forum rules, just trying to explain reasons why polls on webforums can't exactly be relied upon as accurate. I mentioned that because it does happen on alot of other forums.

I didn't think for one second you were advocating creating clone accounts. However, I do agree any poll on any forum should be treated with a degree of caution and not treated as being completely accurate or representative.

Fulgrim's-Chosen
01-09-2007, 19:05
So...out of curiousity ....has anyone either written to Gav or one of the other GW people , or has there been some consensus - vis a vis the Chaos D-naughts in the new Dex' , as to whether or not they must "fully" pivot around to face something...like potentially 180-degrees (completely around) to bring credence to the complaint many have noted about them turning around to "moon" the enemy with their armor-10-rear, as well as adding "injury" to their own forces by shooting at them and potentially killing some of them ?

That seems nutty. If you recall Gav's PM-response (posted earlier in this thread) - he suggests (IIRC) something like "keep the D-naught" away from most of your own troops.

HOWEVER...even if you did this ...if it truly was their intention to have the Dread turn (potentially) completely around ...or around far enough on an angle to enemy guns, to allow opponents to fire at AV-10 rear ... well....that DOES seem over the top (Shooting your own guys and killing them easier than you could have before is bad enough ...apparently losing the 'double your close-combat attacks' aspect of the old Frenzy chart is also bad....but after all those 'changes' to the unit....why would they want it to do something as damaging as turning to expose it's weakest armor facing to the enemy ?).

It just seems very poorly thought out ..which irks me cause I love the ForgeWorld D-naughts and had just gotten two nice new Slaaneshi ones w. cool Sonic Weaponry .... bah !

I suppose I should use the Blastmaster arm as "Counts as" Lascannon, right ? :rolleyes:


And those suggesting the "Smoke Launchers Solution" to the Frenzy issue are sort of exposing the sheer oddity of the way they wrote it up this time round' ... ie ...you need to pay MORE points for a vehicle upgrade...not so much for the actual "necessity" of the upgrade as one would normally use it ...but instead merely to "protect" your own forces from your unit. (I guess it also protects itself when/if it turns itself completely around, as noted above - ugh.... who designed this iteration of the D-naughts and thought they would be useful and often-seen in Chaos army lists in the new Codex ?)

yabbadabba
01-09-2007, 19:33
Am I the only laughing out loud at the whining Chaos players who are acting like GW raped their mom?

Not only is that rude and offensive, but it doesn't add to the discussion at all. If a mod sees this can they remove it please?

I haven't seen the codex yet. What I will do is reserve judgement based on three things

1) How do the rules look in comparison to the DA/BA and Eldar codices - this will need full playtesting against these armies.
2) Does it fulfill what Gav says they set out to do
3) Can I get a playable army out of it either Tourny or Campaign/Fluff.

If the answer to all of these is positive, no matter how disappointed I am with what's not in it, I will have to admit that it is a good codex. If it doesn't, then my criticism will flow like wine :)

Sarevok
01-09-2007, 19:34
Random is ok. Unbalanced is not.
It just so happens the random elements in the Chaos Codex are poor. Daemon Weapons, Possessed, Spawn, Dreads....not worth taking.

Mathhammer trumps Theoryhammer. Show me stats, people.

Possessed are an elite unit costing 26 points lacking any shooting. An elite unit in an army with pretty powerful CC troop squads. They should be killers in HTH.
They aren't.

Possessed statline is +1S over a normal CSM for 11 points more, point for point the regular CSM is better in combat, that's before you take into account powerfists, shooting, ect.

A Possessed with an IoK (29 points each in a unit of 10) is no better against WS4/T4 opposition than a 21 point Berzerker, which is a troops choice. WS5 S4 does the same as WS4 S5.

The basic statline of possessed is simply not effective enough to justify their cost and their worth in the army. So they need a good roll on that table.

Scouts? Booby prise.
Fleet? Considering a Raptor is 20 points, a 26 point fleet model with roughly the same ability is not worthwhile.
Feel no pain? Plague Marines are better point for point.
Furious Charge? Zerks are better point for point.

IMO the only worthwhile rolls are rending and powerweapons. Even if you get Rending or PW, are they that awesome?

Termies have powerweapons and are only 4 points more. Plus shooting attacks, and lots of other options.

10 Possessed with an 1oK is 290 points
12 Zerks with a Powerfist Champion is 292 points

10 Rending Possessed will kill average of 9.63 marines on the charge
The 12 Zerks will kill average of 9.3 marines on the charge. This doesn't take into account their 'nades or pistols.

Even wth a lucky roll, it's not that spectacular.

Possessed are just no good.

sebster
01-09-2007, 19:40
Bear in mind the Chaos dread cost is without a main weapon, while the Marine dreadnought cost includes the almighty ASScannon.

Yeah, that's a good point, and one I shouldn't have missed out.

ExquisiteEvil
01-09-2007, 20:39
Ok ive had the codex for 3 days now.

Ive also had the Eldar, DA and BA codex's since their release.

Let me start with Eldar.

I like the codex. I like it alot. Nicely balanced with other armies and within itself. I Find myself coming up with endless thoughts on army composition and find myself spoilt for choice - not because it has more 'choices' than other codicies but because pretty much ALL of the choices are viable and can be used in some way.

DA/BA

I dont like the unbalanced and 'forcing' of the special characters, but the lists as a whole again have that viability of choice in there, without being horribly overpowered combos like the current SM codex. The combat squad rule only adds to this.

Ive lmost over analysed all 3 of the above armies since ive had access to them, both on table and in paper and they still hold up.

CHAOS

Hmmm. Ok on first glances all was great- such a wealth of choice but on further inspection this is actualy the most restrictive Codex out right now, with the possible exception of Necrons.

There lots of choices in there, but the problem is VERY few are actually viable...

I wont go into the problems in depth - its been done to death here already, but lets look at what Chaos players can actually VIABLY take.

In elites, possessed are a no-no. Im sorry but they suck. Beautiful Models, but far too expensive for what they can do - even with the potential for PWs or Rending theyre still not a good investment. Similary a dread is o no longer use due to the daft implementation of a rule which was dropped BECAUSE it made no sense.

So that leaves Termies and Chosen.

Termies are great. Can be used in a variety of roles, and with the new deepstriking and cheap LRs they dont have to worry being shot to pieces before theyshine, as much as their imperial counterparts. Great new models too.

Chosen are the best way to cost effective heavy weapons outside of oblits. With infiltrate and a reasonable price I like them. Not as much as termies, but Ive been thinking an alpha legion list with a whole lot of them. The problem though lies in the fact that you need 10CSM for a hvy weapon, and havocs wpns being way overpriced. It means Chaos has to use elites if it wants to go down the infantry toting heavy weapons road. This means that most of chosens other cool CC choices simply become redundant - that is if you want your best bang for the buck.

So 2 viable elite choices - chosen being better if they werent forced into the niche of having to be heavies to balance the rest of the list.

Troops - again alot of choices, but all viable?

There are some clear 'winners' in there. Plague Marines are just insane for their points. But its with Zerks chaos gets their best assault unit outside of Termies. The Problem being compared to other Assault Specialists the Zerks pale in comparison. An option for a second (or even thrid) power weapon in there as an option instead of the (now overpriced) plasma pistols would have been nice. So for only a few points more its better to just take the Plaguemarines, and support them with IoK CSMs.

Noise Marines could have been interesting, but the blastmaster is WAY over its points! Combined with small squad numbers due to again cost means even hiding a powerfist in there for some extra punch is risky. If your after the initiative might aswell just mark your CSM for less points, if you want firepower, the special wpns of plague marines and maybe even inferno bolts is better for a similar cost to arming with sonics.

Thousand Sons - very specialised, and ill have to play test them before final judment, but on paper the Plaguemarines still win out.

I suppose Daemons would come in here. The only this I can say about them is they should be 6-7 pts. if they were theyd be viable - as it is theyre not.

So viablility of troops, gives us 2 choices. CSMs and plague marines - possibly a 3rd in the TS- but only against MEQs.

So far then thats basically

2 elites and 2 troops.

Fast attack...what can I say....

Very dissappointing.

Raptors are ok, but only with an icon of khorne. losing hit and run really hurt these fellows. Still maybe a viable fast moving support unit.

Bikes - way too much points, and confusion over MoN.

Spawn...... :wtf: is all I can say im afraid.

FA would have been great with a Defiler in there - its fleet now, and it could have been a different 'version' without the battle cannon and which came with the CC upgrades as standards. ahh, missed opportunities...

So 1 marginally viable fast attack choice.

lastly, Heavy Support.

Its funny, Gav said he moved oblits here to STOP them competing with Havocs. thats downright stupidity on his part. As I said earlier, Havocs hvy weapons simply cost way too much now. If you want CSMs with hvy weapons the chosen are far superior. If you want tankhunters, then its oblits all the way. I will be surprised if we see havocs at all in the future :/

Vindicators I like, Preds I like, defilers I like(but would have been better in FA)...

So that means we have 4 viable options in Heavy support, all competing for 3 slots. I think we'll see vindicators and oblits winning out, with the odd defiler used more for CC- due to the loss of the dread.

So all in all what do we have?

2 elites choices

2-3 troops choices

1 fast attack choice

and 4 heavy support choices

As I said the most restrictive codex with the exception of necrons.

Im not saying Chaos are ruined, far from it. they have so great stuff. Problem is, if gavs intention was to add choice and balance and viability then he has screwed up royally.

He has done the OPPOSITE. If people thought that we saw cookie cutter armies in v3.5 then I believe that this codex will be more of the same- if not MORESO.

Anyway, im off to start assembling that army deal I bought just to get my hands on the darn thing... ;)

Sovereign
01-09-2007, 21:12
Sovereign, I'm sorry if you honestly think of Chaos Space Marines as "cannon fodder" units then there really isn't much point in carrying on the discussion.
Given that CSM are an elite army, the basic CSM model is effectively "fodder", along with anything else with a cheaper Wounds to points ratio. Having *true* fodder in CSM distorts the army, and is why Loyalists don't get Guardsmen or even Stormtroopers in any quantity.

The current army design is quite good at forcing CSM (and SM) into more elite forces with lower model count, as they should be by Fluff and theme. I expect IG and Orks should be pushed down into even more masses and horde when they are redone.

This is all good.

lord_blackfang
01-09-2007, 21:14
ExquisiteEvil, aren't you being a little harsh? I mean, some of the units you've branded "useless" work quite well for loyalists, and Chaos versions are often cheaper and/or better equipped.

How are Raptors marginally useful when they're cheaper and have more options than the much-loved Asasult Marines? Bikes that get +1 attack for just one point more?

Looks to me you had rather unrealistic expectations ;)

Sovereign
01-09-2007, 21:24
DA/BA
I dont like the unbalanced and 'forcing' of the special characters,

CHAOS
There lots of choices in there, but the problem is VERY few are actually viable...
Then don't take any. I haven't felt the need to fielding SCs, and I probably won't ever. They drive the model count down, and I like more wounds on the board.

"Viable" isn't the same as "optimal". I read "Viable" as "has a fair chance at earning its points back", and I don't yet see anything that isn't viable.

For example, you dismiss Havocs due to weapon costs and lack of Combat Squads. I'm not even sure they were nerfed. But regular SM Devs pay just as much for their Heavy Weapons, and are forced into fielding the unit as 5, 10, or 5+5 models. If you only want to field a squad of 6 or 7 models, it's just not possible. So Havocs vs. Devs are comparable, and Fluffily different, and both are viable. Now having a preference for Preds and Vindicators is merely that. But to say that it isn't possible for Havocs to earn their points back in a normal game is ignorant nonsense.

Similarly, at 20 pts (10% cheaper than Assault Marines, which *are* viable), Raptors are an absolute *steal* of a deal. They are awesomely efficient for what their points, have great options (twin claws, Special Weapons), and can gain even more synergy within the list. Same with Bikes. Extremely viable, playable options.

The only way you can say that these units aren't "viable" is if you're holding them up against some grossly overpowered artificial standard that requires extreme efficiency - like the current Codex.

Sovereign
01-09-2007, 21:43
has there been some consensus - vis a vis the Chaos D-naughts in the new Dex' , as to whether or not they must "fully" pivot around to face something...like potentially 180-degrees (completely around) to bring credence to the complaint many have noted about them turning around to "moon" the enemy with their armor-10-rear, as well as adding "injury" to their own forces by shooting at them and potentially killing some of them ?
The Dread only needs to pivot so that it can shoot the nearest visible model.

Even in the worst case (model directly behind the Dread), the Dread wouldn't have to pivot more than 90 degrees, because the weapons have 180-degree field of fire.

The notion of having to turn around completely to face the nearest model square is an exaggeration, and not at all supported by any close reading of the rules.

Sarevok
01-09-2007, 22:08
The Dread only needs to pivot so that it can shoot the nearest visible model.

Even in the worst case (model directly behind the Dread), the Dread wouldn't have to pivot more than 90 degrees, because the weapons have 180-degree field of fire.

The notion of having to turn around completely to face the nearest model square is an exaggeration, and not at all supported by any close reading of the rules.

Actual wording is "towards the closest viable unit". Not just so it can target the nearest unit.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/towards

4. turned to; facing: Her back was toward me.

So it could certainly be argued you do have to "turn around completely to face the nearest model".

Needs a FAQ.

Brother Loki
01-09-2007, 22:43
No, its 'visible' not 'viable'.

Brother Siccarius
01-09-2007, 23:02
So let me get this straight. Chaos is a combination of the 9 Legions, of roving bands of renegades who aren't part of any particular legion but have been around as long as the "big 9" (which according to fluff a few of the pre-heresy legions DID end up breaking up into), new legions that just recently came to the "other" side and Daemonic Legions.....but.....only the big 9 should be in the codex and renegades should be represented by C: SM.

That's very unfair to say "people who want to play a renegade force has to use C:SM since it best represents recent renegades". I don't want to play a renegade warband turned traitor 100 years ago, I want to play one that came into being 10,000 years ago and so therefore I have just as much right to have my Chaos army represented in the new Codex as you do.


Chaos is not just the original big legions. Heck, only one of the big legions even still exists anymore, and that's the Black Legion! The rest split up over party lines faster than politicians before an election. What's left of the others is roving bands of maybe company sized groups of the Legion and a few "gun for hire" units that will pal around with whichever renegades serve their purposes most.

The rest of chaos is made up of Tens to hundreds of chapters (as nobody is certain for sure how many have turned) that have gone renegade since the Heresy, and enough Mutants, rogue psykers, and Traitor guard to outnumber the Legions a dozen times over.


YOU STILL CAN PLAY YOUR LEGION ARMIES...
It's that simple and is only the exact same message played over and over on every single page of this topic. Yes, you may have to do soem count as until their legions speicific books come out, yes you may have to work to limit yourself to only those units that would be available to the legion, and yes you may have to change maybe a handful of models, but you can still do it and do it easily.

So GW got tired of just pandering to the original nine and ignoring every other aspect of chaos, give them time and they'll be back for your shattered Legions when the legion specific codex's come out.

Sovereign
01-09-2007, 23:16
I don't really think daemons are all that great. I could always try possessed robots/machines or something, but why would I go through the trouble of converting something like that for less than stellar units?

2 or 3 squads would cut into termies.

Noise marines don't fit IW.

I don't see it that way. It was pre Heresy.

They could have found better ways to balance IW and other abused lists.

One codex tells me that my entire army should be a certain way. The next codex tells me that my army can't look even remotely like it did. That's poor developement on GW's part.

However, I would rather lose with a fun list than win with that list. It is bland and flavorless to me.

I have traitor guard.

But they are still shooting your guys. I don't see how that wouldn't bother someone.

Others have pointed out the validity of a poll in an online forum.

In Apocalypse I can play all three of my armies like I designed them to be played. Bezerkers are one fluffy bonus the new dex gives back to IW.

I would even add squads of vets with bionics (plaguemarines) could find their way into IW armieis.
I'm OK with them, and would be willing to field them if I could just figure out a good way to represent them. I'm thinking maybe a micromechanial swarm of sorts.

Personally, I like Chosen over Termies, and I'll be fielding a Dread, so I just don't have space in my list. From the models, it's too bad we can't have flying Possessed, but that's no big deal.

Then I guess you don't take them without a good conversion plan. Tho a lot of the fun of the new book will be making conversions to represent different forms of MoN and MoK and whatever.

Apparently, GW does, and that's kind of what matters. If you need a pseudo-Fluff answer, perhaps Heavy Weapons break down a lot and break over 10000 years, so they're less available?

I think GW did a pretty good job in rebalancing. The new books have a lot fewer FOC-breaking options, by design. Only "unusual" units can do this, like Eldar WG and Chaos Daemons. Everything else stays where it belongs, and no options to add other slots per se. FWIW, my army is still playable, but stuff gets reshuffled around again, and I have more interesting options that I didn't even consider before.

I don't know why you say it's bland. It's just not spoon-fed to you before with lots of wonky unbalanced rules.

I have regular guard. I like Demolishers more than Bassies. :)

If the guns are only Bolters, I just don't care. If I lose a guy, that's OK. The Dread will be a wrecking ball in HtH, when he gets there.

The poll is as valid as anything else here. Certainly, it's at least as valid as someone saying that they found a few guys who don't like new book. And the idea of restricting it to Chaos players only is pointless - remember that you need to find opponents to play against, unless all you want to do are Chaos-Chaos battles. So their opinion counts, if you still intend to play games against them.

I'm considering whether I want to have for PM and KB in my army. With good conversions, they could fit. I'll have to think about it.

Joewrightgm
01-09-2007, 23:20
brother siccarius, +1

DhaosAndy
01-09-2007, 23:51
Brother Siccarius: "YOU STILL CAN PLAY YOUR LEGION ARMIES"

Leaving aside the issue of you razing your voice in polite company, yes you can still play WE, EC, TS or DG, if and only if you confine yourself to Troops + HQ, since the codex only allows you to take berzerkers, say as troops. Why because no one can refute the very simple logic of the situation. When confronted with it those who like the new codex immediatly start on about different issues.

So here's the point, if you can't refute the assertion that all Thousand Sons are either rubric marines (which the new codex says that they are) or sorcerers then you have to admit that a TS army can only have TS as troops and a DP &/or a Sorcerer as HQ + vehicles. That is too say you must conceed that the anti camp has a point.

Personaly I'm a purist with regard to my TS & WE, ther're only use under the new codex is as adjuncts to the BL. Since my theme for both armies is marked units only.

Supremearchmarshal
02-09-2007, 03:41
I agree with everything ExquisiteEvil said, except the Raptors, which IMO are quite good for their points. My problem with them however is that by losing their special rules they become spiky assault marines. And they gave chaos Vindicators and Force Weapons. In fact over half of their units are almost direct equivalents of loyalist units, and many of the ones that aren't (Possessed, Berzerkers, Lesser Daemons, Spawn) are not worth taking. The spiky loyalists syndrome is getting ever stronger.

And Berserker are a very poor choice IMO - my friend who plays World Eaters now has slow assault units with no chainaxes, who will most likely be charged themselves and thus lose their furious charge. Plus his Bloodletters (which were admittedly too good in the old codex) were made very poor in the new codex. His two core units are now crappy. He plans to use Termies and Obliterators in his army, since most of his current one wouldn't even reach the enemy lines and even then would be overwhelmed easily by power armour troops. So much for his legion army.

silashand
02-09-2007, 03:56
For myself I agree with EE's review, though as others have noted Raptors are okay, though IMO bland. Sorry, but reducing most units to pale versions of their loyalist counterparts just doesn't seem to interest me (even if I was interested in playing non-Legion armies). The new codex does seem far more restrictive than others and Gav's "freedom not rules" statement is IMO a farce. Ignoring all the complaints about the loss of the legions, etc. that have been done to death, it really does seem like this is the worst codex they've done in a long while. As EE said, I think the propensity for cookie cutter armies will probably be even greater in the new dex. If that's supposedly an improvement, then someone needs to up the design team's meds again.

Cheers, Gary

Reinn
02-09-2007, 06:27
wow the most interesting part of what gav thorpe said is the thing about specific legion codecies...Personally I would love to see a codex world eaters...or thousand sons etc.

Vineas
02-09-2007, 07:04
And Berserker are a very poor choice IMO - my friend who plays World Eaters now has slow assault units with no chainaxes, who will most likely be charged themselves and thus lose their furious charge. Plus his Bloodletters (which were admittedly too good in the old codex) were made very poor in the new codex. His two core units are now crappy. He plans to use Termies and Obliterators in his army, since most of his current one wouldn't even reach the enemy lines and even then would be overwhelmed easily by power armour troops. So much for his legion army.

Has your friend TRIED Berserkers yet? So they aren't good at busting termies anymore. They are as good at busting marines now then before and even better against non-meq's. Rhino's are dirt cheap. From what I have seen of Berserkers in actual games they have gotten way way way better at what they do. Period.

Don't just see the forest for it's trees. Look at the whole goddamn forest.

lord_blackfang
02-09-2007, 08:41
So here's the point, if you can't refute the assertion that all Thousand Sons are either rubric marines (which the new codex says that they are) or sorcerers then you have to admit that a TS army can only have TS as troops and a DP &/or a Sorcerer as HQ + vehicles.

All Tzeentch models are Sorcerers. Their power is the 5+ invulnerable ward.

Hokkaido23
02-09-2007, 09:21
A few points.

I've met Gav, at a few Games Days and maybe a GT or two. He's a good guy, and he speaks about our hobby with enthusiasm. Curse him for not being able to please everyone, I guess, but when people say he's stupid or lying or whatever else, it makes me automatically discount the rest of what they have to say. Sensationalism and conjecture do not a good post make. Have something substantial to say; which leads me to my next point:

The new codex is in no way as powerful as the old codex. Its unable to keep up with the nasty combinations we could get in the old codex. But wait! Didnt a majority of people complain endlessly about 220 point daemon princes, daemon bombs, Iron Warriors, Thousand Sons being useless, 5 man las plas squads, and a host of other things? "Spiky loyalist syndrome" aside, the new codex seems fairly well done in terms of balance and having the majority of the units be somewhat equitable. Is it possible some people are overreacting to change? Sure, there will be 'optimal' chaos builds which will use only the most efficient choices - the DakkaDakka types will see to that, and I will be right alongside them at the GT trying to kill Falcons and Nidzilla lists. But for what I dare say is the vast majority of players, who dont come to this or other websites and play purely for fun (what a strange concept! :rolleyes:), this codex isnt bad at all. Not every codex is designed with your ultimate WAAC army in mind.

So in conclusion, maybe wait for the codex to come out before we force it to suffer our slings and arrows. Let people playtest it en masse, we'll all find the units we love best, all the kinks will get ironed out, and maybe it wont seem so bad. We all choose to play this game and patronize this company, how is it possible there is so much discontent? Maybe everyone just cares too much ;)

DhaosAndy
02-09-2007, 13:00
lord_blackfang: "All Tzeentch models are Sorcerers. Their power is the 5+ invulnerable ward."

Can you give a page ref. For that as I haven't seen that line in the codex.

I find it odd, because it would make rubrics sorcerers:confused:

reds8n
02-09-2007, 13:03
I think you'll find he's using a fluffy explanation for the basic Invulnerable save that Tz marked models get.

Supremearchmarshal
02-09-2007, 15:51
Has your friend TRIED Berserkers yet? So they aren't good at busting termies anymore. They are as good at busting marines now then before and even better against non-meq's. Rhino's are dirt cheap. From what I have seen of Berserkers in actual games they have gotten way way way better at what they do. Period.

Don't just see the forest for it's trees. Look at the whole goddamn forest.

Berserkers are only as good vs. MEQ if they actually charge. The old Berzerkers could surprise you because you couldn't know how much they would move each turn. Now it's easy to charge them (remember it's a pure Khorne army). Rhinos are dirt cheap, but they're also AV 11. Entangle anyone? And they can no longer summon Bloodletters (yes the old ones were too good, but the new ones are utter crap). In a standard chaos army they could maybe work, but in a World Eaters army no way. My friend is essentially forced to take units which don't fit into the World Eaters theme or have a crappy army, since his troops choices got nerfed bad.

Plus there are many other assault units which are better then Berserkers. So no, they're actually not bad per se, but in comparison with their competitors.

Easy E
02-09-2007, 16:58
Berserkers are only as good vs. MEQ if they actually charge. The old Berzerkers could surprise you because you couldn't know how much they would move each turn. Now it's easy to charge them (remember it's a pure Khorne army). Rhinos are dirt cheap, but they're also AV 11. Entangle anyone? And they can no longer summon Bloodletters (yes the old ones were too good, but the new ones are utter crap). In a standard chaos army they could maybe work, but in a World Eaters army no way. My friend is essentially forced to take units which don't fit into the World Eaters theme or have a crappy army, since his troops choices got nerfed bad.

Plus there are many other assault units which are better then Berserkers. So no, they're actually not bad per se, but in comparison with their competitors.

Not all World Eaters have to be Berzerkers anymore. Broaden your image of Khorne. What does it take to spill blood and take skulls on a 40K battlefield? More than just a chain axe. The days of all World Eaters being Berzerkers are over.

I for one welcome this change, as previously it made no sense that old Legions were now made up exclusively of 1 type of soldier. I ask you, can a Berzerker really lead a warband? How about a Demon prince with a Berzerker Glaive? He's to busy acting like a Bass-o-matic to actually plan anything. The thought of it was ridiculous. The World Eaters would have ceased to exist in any form as they would have all killed each other off in a skull piling orgy.

Thanks Gav for removing this 1 dimensional silliness and restoring some logical organization to chaos, but especially to the Cult Legions.

grizzly ruin
02-09-2007, 17:03
Thanks Gav for removing the 1 dimensional Legion Lists and restoring some logical organization to chaos, but especially to the Cult Troops.

Edited for accuracy.

Sarevok
02-09-2007, 17:07
Zerks are good. Remember these guys are troops, so yeah they might get outclassed by other assault units (Possessed should have been the Chaos answer to that, but...)
I never liked the choppa mechanic anyway, Zerks and Ork boyz shouldn't be mowing down Terminators. With WS5 they are very very nearly as good against MEQs anyway, and a bit cheaper than the equivalent in the old codex.


Not all World Eaters have to be Berzerkers anymore. Broaden your image of Khorne. What does it take to spill blood and take skulls on a 40K battlefield? More than just a chain axe. The days of all World Eaters being Berzerkers are over.

I for one welcome this change, as previously it made no sense that old Legions were now made up exclusively of 1 type of soldier. I ask you, can a Berzerker really lead a warband? How about a Demon prince with a Berzerker Glaive? He's to busy acting like a Bass-o-matic to actually plan anything. The thought of it was ridiculous. The World Eaters would have ceased to exist in any form as they would have all killed each other off in a skull piling orgy.

Thanks Gav for removing this 1 dimensional silliness and restoring some logical organization to chaos, but especially to the Cult Legions.

I believe all WE are, in fact, Zerks. It's just that not all Zerks are frothing madmen 24/7. Ever read "The Wrath of Kharn?" well if the most psychotic of all Zerks can actually think during battle, other can too.

The new codex describes "Berzerker-Surgeons" who apply the Zerk lobotomies...Brain Surgery Zerks!

DhaosAndy
02-09-2007, 17:11
Easy E: "Not all World Eaters have to be Berzerkers anymore"

Please state your source for this, as I have read no such thing in the new codex.

Nothing in the new codex, unless I'm missing something, contradicts the statement that all WE are berzerkers.